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

[Gig em Aggies]

http://news.msn.com/us/nevada-cattle-rancher-calls-on-local-sheriffs-to-join-his-cause
Now this freak wants US sheriffs to join him in his crazy ass temper tantrum.

[AiliailiA]

[
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.

Bundy's whole beef hehe.

Thanks for that. It casts light on something that was puzzling me: why so many national parks end abruptly at state borders (or even county borders) even though it's Federal land on both sides of the border.

[AiliailiA]

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.

I can see a case for arresting Bundy: it should be easy to prove that he and his employees didn't just allow his cattle to wander where the court prohibited them to be, but actually drove them there. That's contempt of court and allows a judge to imprison indefinitely until the court's orders are obeyed.

(And before anyone starts whining about 'judicial activism' or 'federal over-reach' that's a power state courts have too. You can appeal the judge's decision and if it's overturned you can claim compensation for any losses you suffered as a result of following the court order ... but you follow the court's order until such time as a higher court puts an injunction on it or it's overturned. If you don't, you're in contempt of court and you can be jailed without any further formalities. Contempt of court is basically an ongoing crime and no court, local state federal or international, takes kindly to that)

But the BLM has not sought Bundy's arrest. As you say, it would be a simple matter to arrest him some time in the last 20 years (well a bit less: since the 1998 decision he has been in breach of) but the BLM has applied a lighter touch: all they want is for Bundy to restrict his cattle grazing on the federal land to 150, and for him to pay his grazing fees. Removing the cattle from the lands they are trespassing on, and appropriating them to pay in part Bundy's debt is a less than proportionate punishment. The BLM could take his ranch or they could take his liberty, but instead they sought only to take his cattle. That's federal under-reach!

I really don't understand why the BLM gave back the 300+ cattle they had impounded though. If the "militia" didn't fire on the BLM coalition for rounding up and impounding cattle, why would they fire when the cattle were loaded on trucks and driven away? That decision by the BLM perplexes me. Did someone pull rank on the BLM?

[Dejanic]

It's the governments land, not his. Make him pay.

[AiliailiA]

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.

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

Your post was obviously a reply to the post immediately above it (by me) so I've edited my post into it.

The Nevada lands site is better. I've found an inventory of state lands there. Most lands in Clark are very small (government buildings and historic sites). The largest state park there is Valley of Fire State Park at 42,088 acres. But it's well out of the area the BLM closed off to round up cattle.

It should be noted though, that state governments privatize land sometimes, so the current inventory does not prove that there wasn't state-owned land in the Bunkerville/Mesquite area back in 1996. Finding that info likely involves searching paper records in Nevada, so I'll leave it to journalists who are actually paid for their work.

By the way, downstream of Bundy's riverside ranch is Lake Mead, entirely surrounded by the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The Colorado River flows into it (as well as the Virgin River where Bundy's ranch is and the Muddy River) and the Colorado river flows out of it after passing through ... the Hoover Dam. These are major assets for tourism as well as the urban population of Las Vegas.

Even if the state and county governments still controlled land usage in the Federal lands I don't think Bundy could count on having free rein to screw up the watershed with unlimited cattle grazing. The state government would have put limits on it too.

[AiliailiA]

It's the governments land, not his. Make him pay.

How much should he pay?

1. Grazing fees owed, not counting interest.
2. Grazing fees owed, with interest on past debt.
3. Grazing fees owed, with interest and fines for non-payment.
4. Grazing fees owed, with interest and fines and including the cost of the attempted BLM impoundment of his cattle

That last one is the kicker. I think Bundy should pay this debt (and if he can stay in the ranching business, growing some feed on his property, feedlotting, and running another 150 head wherever BLM or other landowners give him permission to ... then good luck to him). But it would actually be quite unfair to bill him for the costs incurred in the BLM roundup operation.

Those damn-fool "militia" did more to ruin his business than the BLM ever did. They made it too dangerous to actually impound and remove the trespass cattle — disarming the criminal so to speak, and a very merciful response to the crime — and may have ruined Bundy if the BLM takes that tack.

To me, option 4 is too much. For all that Bundy encouraged "militia" to come onto his property or camp nearby to support him, the sad old git isn't responsible for their presence or their actions. They came, and they caused the vast escalation of costs for the BLM to enforce the court order.

Bundy did not employ the "militia" to take his side. They volunteered. There would be poetic justice if they now saw the man they sought to support fined for their presence and attitude. But poetic justice isn't justice. Scapegoating isn't justice. Martyrdom isn't justice. Bundy should be held to pay no more than if that idiotic "militia" had not turned up in his defence against a lawful government operation. Bundy called for support, but he did not and could not exercise any control over how the supporters behaved once they turned up.

In short, I'm against option 4. I don't think Bundy should be held liable for the expense of the BLM's failed attempt to confiscate the cattle.

I'm somewhere between option 2 and option 3, for what the federal government should settle for. Arresting Bundy (for contempt of court) is an option also, but it doesn't fit into the scale of "what should he pay?". Between 2 and 3: Bundy should pay all his back fees, with interest, and fines for not paying before should be reduced pro-rata, according to his ability to pay.

Notwithstanding that Bundy probably doesn't keep good books and may have gold buried somewhere, his ability to pay can be adequately assessed by his income record. Live or slaughtered cattle sales leave a big paper trail. Payment of ranch hands less so, but it wouldn't help Bundy at all to claim expenses not previously declared (ie, paying ranch hands under the table) because that would have the IRS on him.

And if he can't pay what he owes, then tough luck Cliven Bundy. Cattle ranching is a business, and businesses sometimes fail.

[Conscentia]

http://news.msn.com/us/nevada-cattle-rancher-calls-on-local-sheriffs-to-join-his-cause
Now this freak wants US sheriffs to join him in his crazy ass temper tantrum.

They should arrest him.

[GrarG]

A government exists to serve the people, the land is public land owned by the people, the people cannot be charged for using land they own.

No, I'm not really naive enough to believe that any government really ranks serving it's people as a priority, but whatever, I'm a romantic...

[Shilya]

A government exists to serve the people, the land is public land owned by the people, the people cannot be charged for using land they own.

While the people cannot be charged for it, the individual very well can. Because the individual isn't the people - he's only part of them. So when the individual uses land that everyone owns, then it's only fair he compensates all the people who don't get to use it at the same time.

[Ifreann]

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.

Which really changes nothing about my question, which is less about this specific situation and more about similar situations generally. But don't let me keep you from reading things I never said from my posts.

---

http://news.msn.com/us/nevada-cattle-rancher-calls-on-local-sheriffs-to-join-his-cause
Now this freak wants US sheriffs to join him in his crazy ass temper tantrum.

"Every sheriff across the United States of America, take away the guns from the United States bureaucrats," the 76-year-old Bundy said on Monday while standing on an un-hitched flatbed truck trailer at the entrance to his property.

So he opposes the Second Amendment. Fascinating.

---

A government exists to serve the people, the land is public land owned by the people,

No it's not. It's owned by the federal government. Like the White House, or the Pentagon.

[Conscentia]

A government exists to serve the people, the land is public land owned by the people, the people cannot be charged for using land they own.

No, I'm not really naive enough to believe that any government really ranks serving it's people as a priority, but whatever, I'm a romantic...

But the land isn't public. It's federally-owned. It's the State's land, and the State can charge whatever it likes just like any other land-owning institution.

[Swanderfeld]

It's the governments land, not his. Make him pay.

How much should he pay?

1. Grazing fees owed, not counting interest.
2. Grazing fees owed, with interest on past debt.
3. Grazing fees owed, with interest and fines for non-payment.
4. Grazing fees owed, with interest and fines and including the cost of the attempted BLM impoundment of his cattle

That last one is the kicker. I think Bundy should pay this debt (and if he can stay in the ranching business, growing some feed on his property, feedlotting, and running another 150 head wherever BLM or other landowners give him permission to ... then good luck to him). But it would actually be quite unfair to bill him for the costs incurred in the BLM roundup operation.

Those damn-fool "militia" did more to ruin his business than the BLM ever did. They made it too dangerous to actually impound and remove the trespass cattle — disarming the criminal so to speak, and a very merciful response to the crime — and may have ruined Bundy if the BLM takes that tack.

To me, option 4 is too much. For all that Bundy encouraged "militia" to come onto his property or camp nearby to support him, the sad old git isn't responsible for their presence or their actions. They came, and they caused the vast escalation of costs for the BLM to enforce the court order.

Bundy did not employ the "militia" to take his side. They volunteered. There would be poetic justice if they now saw the man they sought to support fined for their presence and attitude. But poetic justice isn't justice. Scapegoating isn't justice. Martyrdom isn't justice. Bundy should be held to pay no more than if that idiotic "militia" had not turned up in his defence against a lawful government operation. Bundy called for support, but he did not and could not exercise any control over how the supporters behaved once they turned up.

In short, I'm against option 4. I don't think Bundy should be held liable for the expense of the BLM's failed attempt to confiscate the cattle.

It doesn't matter if militia volunteered or if he employed them. Cost of enforcement needs to be bore by the indivudal who refused to comply with the court order.
For instance: a tenant doesn't pay rent, home-owner takes them to high court and gets eviction notice and rent arrears. If enforcement officers need to come down and evict the tenant they not only has to pay rent arrears and move out but also needs to pay the money for enforcement officers. Same principle applies here.

[Vissegaard]

The "government land" speaks for everything. Is he the government?
No.

[Alyekra]

The "government land" speaks for everything. Is he the government?
No.

What right did the government had to the land besides "We said so"?

[Vissegaard]

The "government land" speaks for everything. Is he the government?
No.

What right did the government had to the land besides "We said so"?

They can use force against those, who disobey them, so they have all the rights they can defend with it.

[Alyekra]

What right did the government had to the land besides "We said so"?

They can use force against those, who disobey them, so they have all the rights they can defend with it.

Oh, so thuggery wins. Yay.

[Swanderfeld]

The "government land" speaks for everything. Is he the government?
No.

What right did the government had to the land besides "We said so"?

They have the deeds to the land; the same thing that gives every other property owner ownership of the property.

[Alyekra]

What right did the government had to the land besides "We said so"?

They have the deeds to the land; the same thing that gives every other property owner ownership of the property.

Who wrote the deeds?

[Ifreann]

The "government land" speaks for everything. Is he the government?
No.

What right did the government had to the land besides "We said so"?

How the federal government came to own this land is beside the point. They do own it. I don't think even Bundy disputes that.

[Swanderfeld]

They have the deeds to the land; the same thing that gives every other property owner ownership of the property.

Who wrote the deeds?

I dont know, I imagine whatever is equivalent of Land Registry that side of the pond.

[Vissegaard]

They can use force against those, who disobey them, so they have all the rights they can defend with it.

Oh, so thuggery wins. Yay.

Yes, exactly. The whole concept of state and government is based on the principle of thuggery. Firstly, it was clear back in good old times of feudalism, but in today´s society, many people forget about the essence of power, because their brains are filled with meaningless constructs such as justice or rule of the law. It is okay to have those around, but the basics are never changed. We obey the guys, who give us fear and hope.

[Alyekra]

Oh, so thuggery wins. Yay.

Yes, exactly. The whole concept of state and government is based on the principle of thuggery. Firstly, it was clear back in good old times of feudalism, but in today´s society, many people forget about the essence of power, because their brains are filled with meaningless constructs such as justice or rule of the law. It is okay to have those around, but the basics are never changed. We obey the guys, who give us fear and hope.

I will not.

[Destrovia]

Did he buy the land?
Did he request permission to use it?
Was the request accepted?
Did the Rangers say it was OK for him to stay?
No. gtfo

[Vissegaard]

Yes, exactly. The whole concept of state and government is based on the principle of thuggery. Firstly, it was clear back in good old times of feudalism, but in today´s society, many people forget about the essence of power, because their brains are filled with meaningless constructs such as justice or rule of the law. It is okay to have those around, but the basics are never changed. We obey the guys, who give us fear and hope.

I will not.

Well, if you can defend that...

[Occupied Deutschland]

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.

Which really changes nothing about my question, which is less about this specific situation and more about similar situations generally. But don't let me keep you from reading things I never said from my posts.

You referred specifically to the BLM Rangers in your comment, which would tend to suggest you were speaking about this situation. But in any case...
It applies in general as well. Before surrounding a dude's ranch with SWAT, Rangers, and snipers out of some type of fear he might walk out and try to stop a government action related to enforcing a law he is breaking (in this specific case, running cattle on public land) the government can arrest that man for the law he is in violation of. Hell, if that man makes threats about stopping the government action related to enforcing the law he is breaking, he can be arrested for that as well.

A government exists to serve the people, the land is public land owned by the people,

No it's not. It's owned by the federal government. Like the White House, or the Pentagon.

Incorrect.
The BLM has a quite specific purpose. They manage PUBLIC lands. Federal government lands under their jurisdiction are held as belonging to every citizen of the United States, to be free to access and use for recreation, grazing, logging, energy production, and conservation. The BLM has some jurisdictional authority to restrict and manage the land, but it is not federal land in the manner of the White House or Pentagon.

This wouldn't matter, except that it's where Bundy's objection (in a roundabout, extremist, manner) and the entire Sagebrush Rebellion arise from. The federal management of that land which is SUPPOSED to be open for everyone's use inside of states and that management not always reflecting local desires/needs or conservation efforts because of BLM bureaucracy and/or inefficiency (and/or environmental lobby influence, and/or a more 'wide' vision of the land's usage, etc.).

What right did the government had to the land besides "We said so"?

How the federal government came to own this land is beside the point. They do own it. I don't think even Bundy disputes that.

That's actually exactly what Bundy has disputed (and lost, two or three times now).

He insists it belongs to the state and the BLM has no authority on it. It's batfuck insanely wrong, but it's what he claims.