HD Tactical

A win for "We the people" the Feds back down to the citizens.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • dirtysouth

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Mar 11, 2013
    Messages
    975
    Points
    0
    Location
    Milton FL
    I'm working off a tablet... I don't get it. All I hear on the vid is the peter frampton sound alike???
     

    M.O.A.

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Feb 6, 2013
    Messages
    1,983
    Points
    38
    Location
    Milton,Fl
    A good ending in favor of states rights.
     

    Droshki

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages
    3,864
    Points
    38
    Location
    Texas
    As I understand...

    1. Bundy and his family have been using public land--property of the people of the United States since the Mexican Cession of 1848, currently managed by the BLM--for cattle grazing since before Nevada was a state

    2. Bundy and/or his family supposedly had a deal with Clark County to use the land up until 1993, when the BLM "took over" and told him he must pay a fee for use of the land for grazing

    3. Bundy has been fighting the BLM in court for 20 years, and the court finally put its foot down and told him to put up or shut up. Bundy claims he is not subject to federal law.

    4. The BLM has decided to recover as much of his debt as they can, by rounding up his cattle (at significant expense, which makes the matter punitive rather than revenue recovery, if I'm reading this correctly).

    5. Local protest blocking Highway 170, confrontation with BLM rangers ensues, guns get drawn, a woman gets scuffed up and a dude gets tasered, all in the presence and camera eye of a KLAS Channel 8 reporter and cameraman

    6. Bundy issues a call to arms to Western militias, they respond. Right-wing news media takes the lead, whipping up their audience into a lather. MSM picks up the story, here we are.


    Externalities which appear to be used to introduce false context:

    A. BLM has designated that particular region as desert tortoise habitat and its charge is to enforce the Endangered Species Act

    B. A preserve set aside for desert tortoises lost funding in the Sequester, therefore 1,400 tortoises were euthanized <= this probably has nothing to do with Externality A, but is being used as false context. ??

    C. Harry Reid something something crooked solar project something or other <= another false context?


    So, questions:

    1. Has Bundy presented a reasonable case to be grandfathered in for the BLM land use because he was there first?

    2. Why would Bundy work a deal with Clark County for use of the land, when it's not county property? What happened in 1993 that suddenly blew that deal?

    3. On what grounds is Bundy claiming he's not subject to federal law? Because he was there first?

    4. Is the 3 million dollar figure they've spent to confiscate his herd correct, or was it pulled from someone's butt? If it is correct, is this in the public interest to spend money to recover less money?
     

    Droshki

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages
    3,864
    Points
    38
    Location
    Texas
    Methinks they are just going to slap a lien on his ranch, and let him graze away. Ultimately, he'll probably lose everything he owns.
     

    Droshki

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages
    3,864
    Points
    38
    Location
    Texas
    Well, is everyone arguing that he should be able to graze his cattle on BLM land for free? Because then we have to let the 16,000 other ranchers in the program graze for free, in which case we certainly can't expect other companies to pay for drilling or mineral rights on federal lands. Ultimately, companies can just come in and start drilling and mining wherever they want .... since its public land?
     

    bohica793

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Feb 10, 2014
    Messages
    2,258
    Points
    83
    Location
    On the farm south of Magnolia Springs
    I understand your argument but considering that his family has been grazing this land for well over 100 years, had previously purchased the grazing right to the land and that the BLM has only come into this argument in the last 20 years, I have to side with the rancher on this one. Grazing grass is a whole different story that drilling and mining, so I don't think this is an equivalent argument. To me, the demands of the BLM are heavy handed overreach which exemplifies the current administration.
     

    DSPLCD1

    45 GAP
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 27, 2012
    Messages
    2,439
    Points
    63
    Location
    Cantonment, Florida
    This is circulating now.



    VERIFY THIS ?At 1750 hours ET, I was contacted by my source within the Department of Homeland Security regarding the current situation at the Bundy Ranch. To put it bluntly, the people are being hoodwinked into believing that the situation is being resolved. It is not. It is a strategic de-escalation to fool the public. This source stated that the retreat of the BLM agents and the release of the cattle was actually crafted as a potential plan yesterday (Friday, 11 April 2014) based on the following:

    1. A military assessment of satellite and drone surveillance imagery of the “patriot resistance. Drones under the control of the U.S. military were in use, taking real-time photographic images of not just the activity at the ranch, but "identifying the protesters, any arms and any supplies they might have or be carrying. “Mission accomplished.”
    2. Real-time communication intercepts between patriots on-site and their off-site support;
    3. Active monitoring of internet traffic regarding the coverage of events at ranch;
    4. The monitoring of real-time video from the scene.

    This source stated that a response by the patriot movement was anticipated, although exceeded their expectations. Although this was a real operation, they also ran this as a test case for future government operations once they saw the response. They were also actively managing the media, in some cases threatening to cut off White House access to anyone covering the event.

    Despite this, the coverage by the alternative media began to create a public relations problem that was not easily managed. Note the lack of acknowledgment by the White House regarding this event. They are intentionally framing it as a state issue, despite the fact that all federal response has been and continues to be from the White House. There is a reason for this – a reason that has not been identified in any of the public reports to date. I will explain in further detail in a follow-up report on Sunday, after this source attends [redacted] to obtain more specific information about future federal operations. Regardless, according to this source, the government will take back ‘their land’ as they must to fulfill international obligations. It was never about grazing rights or anything other than (1) “securing clear title” to the land, and (2) further demonizing any patriotic resistance. It is my understanding, based on the information from this source, that it is a critical task to create a situation that will also advance their agenda of gun control
     

    donr101395

    Master
    Super Moderator
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages
    2,984
    Points
    83
    Location
    Crestview
    So, questions:

    1. Has Bundy presented a reasonable case to be grandfathered in for the BLM land use because he was there first?

    No because it doesn't matter if the BLM didn't get to the property until yesterday. They are the managers, not the owners, and the owners have owned the land for 16 years before Nevada was a state. The Nevada state constitution also had a line put in it allowing the Federal government to retain ownership of unappropriated lands in exchange for statehood. The deal was made because Nevada wanted statehood, but didn't meet the minimum requirements to become a state.

    2. Why would Bundy work a deal with Clark County for use of the land, when it's not county property? What happened in 1993 that suddenly blew that deal?

    He paid the BLM up until 93 when he decided to stop paying because he didn't like how the BLM was managing the land. He tried to pay Clark County afterwords and they refused his payment because they weren't the managers or owners.

    3. On what grounds is Bundy claiming he's not subject to federal law? Because he was there first?

    His family didn't get there until the 1880s 40+/- years after the government had received the land from Mexico.

    4. Is the 3 million dollar figure they've spent to confiscate his herd correct, or was it pulled from someone's butt? If it is correct, is this in the public interest to spend money to recover less money?

    Hard telling, but they need to take the 3 million from his estate.



    I don't want to see this guy lose his livelihood, but he brought this on himself by making stupid choices. He was in the wrong and I won't throw my hat in his corner. If they were trying to throw him off of his property I would whole heartedly support him. He has no claim to the property other than he used it illegally to make a profit for 21 years.
    There is is enough stupid to go around on this one. He made poor decisions and the BLM responded poorly. Wait for the post mid term election gun control laws to flow.

    http://lands.nv.gov/forms/chapter1.pdf

    " That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands . . ."
     

    Droshki

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages
    3,864
    Points
    38
    Location
    Texas
    I don't want to see this guy lose his livelihood, but he brought this on himself by making stupid choices. He was in the wrong and I won't throw my hat in his corner. If they were trying to throw him off of his property I would whole heartedly support him. He has no claim to the property other than he used it illegally to make a profit for 21 years.
    There is is enough stupid to go around on this one. He made poor decisions and the BLM responded poorly. Wait for the post mid term election gun control laws to flow.

    http://lands.nv.gov/forms/chapter1.pdf


    Very nicely done. Good to see someone doing some research, and including citations in their work. Bravo.
     
    Top Bottom