I have the right to use government land (now with slavery!)

[Distruzio]

My thoughts: this whole situation is not about the government or the cattle it's about one old hard ass refusing to pay a fee to use public lands. Who believes he's above the law and everyone around who thinks "I ain't no criminal but I have the right to use land that's not mine without laying so suck it government guys"

The government is right, only because the US is not a democratic State in structure but, rather, a Federal Republic. Were this guy to try his shenanigans in, say, ancient Athens.... I'd have to agree with him.

If no one owns the governmental authority, then no one owns "government land."

Of course.... reality tends to kick you in the ass harder than you expected.

[AiliailiA]

He was, until 1993.

Prior to 1993 he was paying the BLM grazing fees. Grazing fees on public lands was a power of the DoI through the US Grazing Service starting by law in 1934. In 1946 the US Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office and formed the Bureau of Land Management. Since 1946, as the sucessor organization, Grazing Fees are part of the BLM's scope of powers as the successor organization, over public lands used for grazing, of the US Grazing Service.

There is some state-owned land, and they do lease some of it out for grazing. Unfortunately, the Arizona State Land Department site doesn't seem to have a map of where it's state land even is, let alone what it's leased for. It seems that interested parties should go into the office and look at the paper copies ... ain't small government great.

Q: What is "Open Range"?

This question is frequently asked by motorists involved in automobile accidents with livestock on a roadway, or by owners of private land in rural subdivisions whose ornamental plants are eaten by livestock from adjoining State Trust grazing land.

The answer is not easily found. The Arizona Department of Agriculture's Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 3, Article 8 (No-Fence Districts), contains nine separate statutes that comprise the open range laws of the State. A motorist who has been involved in an accident and wants to know if a particular location is "open range" should contact the County Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors is the entity that has the authority to designate No-Fence Districts. If an area is not within a No-Fence District, it is open range. The Board of Supervisors keeps the records for such designations. (ARS 3-1421-1422)

(Bolding theirs).

Yup, OK. Those parts of the state which aren't No-Fence Districts where stock can roam however they like, are Open Range districts where stock can roam however they like. Sorry about your roses, not our fault, there's a law about it but it's complicated, so if you have any further questions then phone up and talk to one of our friendly staff who don't know either ...

In any case, I haven't read Bundy himself making any such claim. He speaks vaguely of paying the state government, but I think he means regular rates on the block of land he owns.

[Tekania]

It should be noted that that is AZ, this is NV.

[AiliailiA]

It should be noted that that is AZ, this is NV.

OK I mean okay. I'll try again.

[Risottia]

Looks like a "might makes right" to me.

I'd say the US gov't should respond by showing the armed rebels who's got the actual might. Roll in the tanks.

Can't, it has been against the law for the federal government to use the military to enforce law since reconstruction.

How about the local National Guard or whatevs? Iirc National Guards do have armour.

[Sociobiology]

Prior to 1993 he was paying the BLM grazing fees. Grazing fees on public lands was a power of the DoI through the US Grazing Service starting by law in 1934. In 1946 the US Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office and formed the Bureau of Land Management. Since 1946, as the sucessor organization, Grazing Fees are part of the BLM's scope of powers as the successor organization, over public lands used for grazing, of the US Grazing Service.

There is some state-owned land, and they do lease some of it out for grazing. Unfortunately, the Arizona State Land Department site doesn't seem to have a map of where it's state land even is, let alone what it's leased for. It seems that interested parties should go into the office and look at the paper copies ... ain't small government great.

Q: What is "Open Range"?

This question is frequently asked by motorists involved in automobile accidents with livestock on a roadway, or by owners of private land in rural subdivisions whose ornamental plants are eaten by livestock from adjoining State Trust grazing land.

The answer is not easily found. The Arizona Department of Agriculture's Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 3, Article 8 (No-Fence Districts), contains nine separate statutes that comprise the open range laws of the State. A motorist who has been involved in an accident and wants to know if a particular location is "open range" should contact the County Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors is the entity that has the authority to designate No-Fence Districts. If an area is not within a No-Fence District, it is open range. The Board of Supervisors keeps the records for such designations. (ARS 3-1421-1422)

(Bolding theirs).

Yup, OK. Those parts of the state which aren't No-Fence Districts where stock can roam however they like, are Open Range districts where stock can roam however they like. Sorry about your roses, not our fault, there's a law about it but it's complicated, so if you have any further questions then phone up and talk to one of our friendly staff who don't know either ...

In any case, I haven't read Bundy himself making any such claim. He speaks vaguely of paying the state government, but I think he means regular rates on the block of land he owns.

It was the same land and the same fee's, up until 1993 the local government was in control of the federal land, but it was federal land the old BLM laws just left the states in charge of managing it. But it caused so many problems (such as ignoring laws or creating conflicting laws) that starting back in the 70's they started taking first hand control of federal land to actually enforce the laws. And that is Bundy's whole beef, that he should not have to deal with the federal government to use federal land, which is just asinine.

[Ifreann]

It's the federal government's land.

---

How else are they meant to safely arrest people who surround themselves with armed thugs?

In this case the Feds were the thugs.

Whatever terminology you prefer. How else are they meant to safely arrest people who surround themselves with armed totally-not-thugs?

[Gauthier]

In this case the Feds were the thugs.

Whatever terminology you prefer. How else are they meant to safely arrest people who surround themselves with armed totally-not-thugs?

Silly. The nanny state thugs are supposed to back down and let the not-thugs do what they want to do with the land. Galt's Gulch 2016!

[Ifreann]

Whatever terminology you prefer. How else are they meant to safely arrest people who surround themselves with armed totally-not-thugs?

Silly. The nanny state thugs are supposed to back down and let the not-thugs do what they want to do with the land. Galt's Gulch 2016!

I suppose any similarity such a situation would have to land being stolen from it's rightful owner by threat of deadly force is just a coincidence.

[Jocabia]

In this case the Feds were the thugs.

Whatever terminology you prefer. How else are they meant to safely arrest people who surround themselves with armed totally-not-thugs?

Don't be silly. Just because we all got together and formed this thing called society and gave that society laws doesn't mean that we should empower those who are responsible for those laws with the power to enforce those laws.

[Farnhamia]

Whatever terminology you prefer. How else are they meant to safely arrest people who surround themselves with armed totally-not-thugs?

Don't be silly. Just because we all got together and formed this thing called society and gave that society laws doesn't mean that we should empower those who are responsible for those laws with the power to enforce those laws.

Nor does it mean that anyone is actually required to obey those laws, either. After all, if you haven't given your express consent to obey the laws of "society," you don't have to.

[Jocabia]

Don't be silly. Just because we all got together and formed this thing called society and gave that society laws doesn't mean that we should empower those who are responsible for those laws with the power to enforce those laws.

Nor does it mean that anyone is actually required to obey those laws, either. After all, if you haven't given your express consent to obey the laws of "society," you don't have to.

Yup, that's totally how laws work. They're voluntary.

[Farnhamia]

Nor does it mean that anyone is actually required to obey those laws, either. After all, if you haven't given your express consent to obey the laws of "society," you don't have to.

Yup, that's totally how laws work. They're voluntary.

Guidelines. Like yellow traffic lights.

[Swanderfeld]

How the hell is this a victory for property rights?

Looks like a "might makes right" to me.

I'd say the US gov't should respond by showing the armed rebels who's got the actual might. Roll in the tanks.

...too messy. Send in few police, the thugs assault and Federal government retreats. Everyone goes home and then SWAT team turn up a month latter to arrest them for assaulting a federal officer and this guy for a whole lot of other offences on top of that...
Everyone wins.

[Gig em Aggies]

Looks like a "might makes right" to me.

I'd say the US gov't should respond by showing the armed rebels who's got the actual might. Roll in the tanks.

...too messy. Send in few police, the thugs assault and Federal government retreats. Everyone goes home and then SWAT team turn up a month latter to arrest them for assaulting a federal officer and this guy for a whole lot of other offences on top of that...
Everyone wins.

Naw the police are to much of a push over. To really send the Not-thugs a message send these guys after them

[Occupied Deutschland]

In this case the Feds were the thugs.

Whatever terminology you prefer. How else are they meant to safely arrest people who surround themselves with armed totally-not-thugs?

Do it before the not-thugs arrive?

Which only gives a window of about 20 years. I can totally see why making an arrest in that time-frame would be unreasonable.

[Ifreann]

Whatever terminology you prefer. How else are they meant to safely arrest people who surround themselves with armed totally-not-thugs?

Do it before the not-thugs arrive?

The federal government's time machine can only be used to counter Soviet attempts to alter history, and only with a warrant from the Temporal Supreme Court.

Which only gives a window of about 20 years. I can totally see why making an arrest in that time-frame would be unreasonable.

Presumably the same reason that giving an intellectually honest answer to my question would be unreasonable.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Do it before the not-thugs arrive?

The federal government's time machine can only be used to counter Soviet attempts to alter history, and only with a warrant from the Temporal Supreme Court.

Which only gives a window of about 20 years. I can totally see why making an arrest in that time-frame would be unreasonable.

Presumably the same reason that giving an intellectually honest answer to my question would be unreasonable.

Ah, so telling the Feds to arrest the guy breaking the law is now expecting some ludicrous amount of foresight from them only a time-machine could solve because we OBVIOUSLY couldn't have noticed anything at the time?


But hey, if you want another answer it's quite easy: The Feds come in with their assault rifles and not-tanks, break the "not-thugs" militia out of the way, and arrest Bundy.
You know, that's why the Feds have the assault rifles and not-tanks for. If we aren't going to USE the militarized police force to enforce the law, what the fuck is the point of having it? Unless it's expected the not-tanks and not-Federal-polices mere presence will frighten people into behaving, in which case "what the fuck"?

[Amontein]

Whoever has the most power. I guess the Bureau. Might makes right. If Bundy can enforce his use of the land then he can go ahead and use it.

[Ifreann]

The federal government's time machine can only be used to counter Soviet attempts to alter history, and only with a warrant from the Temporal Supreme Court.


Presumably the same reason that giving an intellectually honest answer to my question would be unreasonable.

Ah, so telling the Feds to arrest the guy breaking the law is now expecting some ludicrous amount of foresight from them only a time-machine could solve because we OBVIOUSLY couldn't have noticed anything at the time?

No, I didn't actually say anything of the sort. You could track back through the quotes and get some idea of the context of my question, but I suspect that if you cared to do that you would have already and I wouldn't need to point out that you'd better understand my posts if you did.

But hey, if you want another answer it's quite easy:

I wasn't asking because I don't know. You see, Jim, the person I asked this question of, supports this militia and approves of how they're standing up to the federal government and opposes the militarisation of law enforcement officers. Given those things, I'd like to know how he expects Federal agents to arrest someone who's surrounded by up to 1000 armed protesters, because this rancher and his friends aren't the only people who can gather up a bunch of guns and put themselves between law enforcement officers and some person they want to enforce the law on.

[ShadowDragons]

The rancher should have to pay the government for using the land and the government should be sued for seizing the ranchers cattle.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Ah, so telling the Feds to arrest the guy breaking the law is now expecting some ludicrous amount of foresight from them only a time-machine could solve because we OBVIOUSLY couldn't have noticed anything at the time?

No, I didn't actually say anything of the sort. You could track back through the quotes and get some idea of the context of my question, but I suspect that if you cared to do that you would have already and I wouldn't need to point out that you'd better understand my posts if you did.

Oh, I fully understand the context of your question.

You see, the militia wasn't THERE until AFTER the Rangers, SWAT, etc. arrived on the scene. Roughly a week after, in fact.
If they wanted to arrest Bundy, they could have and there would have been no militia there to stop them, slow them, or make their arrest look bad. The militia showed up because of the reporting on the amount of government force being used to prevent the Bundy's from interfering in the round-up.

I wasn't asking because I don't know. You see, Jim, the person I asked this question of, supports this militia and approves of how they're standing up to the federal government and opposes the militarisation of law enforcement officers. Given those things, I'd like to know how he expects Federal agents to arrest someone who's surrounded by up to 1000 armed protesters, because this rancher and his friends aren't the only people who can gather up a bunch of guns and put themselves between law enforcement officers and some person they want to enforce the law on.

[/quote]
And, as I pointed out and as you should know, the hyper-militarized 'police' forces of the federal government showed up prior to any militia being present as the militia responded to the images and video of the 'police' forces, largely only showing up at the end of last week when the round-up had already been going on for a week or so.

No arrest was made for entirely different reasons than 'because there's militia!'
Bundy was never going to be arrested unless he interfered in the round-up, and until after the sheriff-fed 'deal' that was negotiated, he didn't.

Edit: quote tags

[Gig em Aggies]

The rancher should have to pay the government for using the land and the government should be sued for seizing the ranchers cattle.

The government can't be sued for the seizure because the government seized the cattle because Bundy did not pay his 1.1 million dollars in grazing fees and because the cattle was illegally on land Bundy did not own. So no they can't sue the government

[Tekania]

The rancher should have to pay the government for using the land and the government should be sued for seizing the ranchers cattle.

The government had a judgement from the court authorizing them to seize the cattle. It was the same court that ordered the Rancher to remove the cattle. The Rancher could have prevented his cattle being seized by removing tehm by the court imposed deadline. He did not As such the BLM, by ruling of the judgement, could seize the cattle themselves and apply the expenses to the amount owed by the rancher in the judgement.

I mean, the rancher could file a suit..... would be a pointless waste of money in filing fees and atty expenses (assuming he has one) for a case that would be automatically lost at hearing.

[Tekania]

The rancher should have to pay the government for using the land and the government should be sued for seizing the ranchers cattle.

The government can't be sued for the seizure because the government seized the cattle because Bundy did not pay his 1.1 million dollars in grazing fees and because the cattle was illegally on land Bundy did not own. So no they can't sue the government

Actually they removed his cattle because they had a court order to do so, as Bundy was given a notice by the court to remove his cattle in 45 days in an order signed in July of 2013, and if he did not then the BLM could seize/remove the cattle with the expenses incurred becoming part of the judgement against Mr. Bundy. As in a civil proceeding one is required to act on an order you have the power to do so, and if you do not and the other party has to act to bring into effect the requirements of the order, then the other party having had to act on YOUR behalf would have costs incurred in performing the act placed in judgement upon you, as these were acts you were responsible to do yourself.

All in all I'd say they should wait a bit, go back to court with it, and then the judge should just issue a bench warrant and put Mr. Bundy in confinement till he agrees to carry out the court's orders. IF he wants to it in jail till he dies... so be it. It's his choice.