Interesting Quote on the Bundy Cattle Case

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

Here's the question that I have...

Does anything think that the amount of land owned by the United States, especially in Nevada, is nothing less than obscene?

Why do they own that much land?

Is it because the feds have the land... because they want to?

Here's the danger... Federal ownership often brings with it federal sovereignty:

The Federal government is the single largest holder of real estate in the United States. Federal custody and control over this property brings with it a host of responsibilities, including in some cases federal criminal jurisdiction

So if left unchecked... this can have the affect of pushing aside the sovereignty of the states in favor of the federal government. Whether you value state sovereignty or not, it is not what the founders wanted.

I'm not saying the Feds should never own lands... I'm saying that we should think about this a bit and question why the Feds have all these lands.

To me, based on that image above, the Feds ought to justify holding those lands. If they can... great, let's move on. If not, then it should be reverted back to the states.

Remember the US. vs Texas case?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7001978707855678122&q=339+U.S.+707&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47

When Texas was admitted into the union, the prior sovereign was the Republic of Texas. And as an independent republic, Texas claimed some rights that no other state claimed and claimed that they continued to hold those rights even after joining the union. That's the inverse of what's going in my eyes.

So... this rancher's case... it's likely that the Ninth Circuit has got it wrong... but, I haven't seen anything if there's any way this is going to the SC.

**LordofHats**

What do they own that much land?

Who do you think acquired it? We didn't just get some land and be like, lets go colonize this bitch. We bought it in the Louisiana Purchase and won it following the Mexican-American War. Pretty much every piece of land west of Kansas was at one point owned by the United States government and sold to citizens through programs like the Homestead Act. And they owned it even before those lands became territories, let alone states.

As you may know, much of the South West is a desert. No one wants to buy land in a desert (not 100 years ago anyway). That means the US government kept all that land because they never sold it to anyone.

Area 51 is out there to be hidden (well it is) it's out there because the government has so much land in that region and no one was using it for anything else. More land was bought up in the 20th century along the east than the west back when the government was pushing the national park programs.

**Jihadin**

Native American Rez are not included right?

**hotsauceman1**

In the end, The government owns all land, they can take it as they please.......Oh god, I got an Idea. Have the congress use imminent domain on the bundy rance and say it is for a highway

**LordofHats**

Jihadin wrote:
Native American Rez are not included right?

Good question... Not sure. According to this possibly unreliable source I found on Google the US Government owns the title to the land which means they could be included in the above chart.

**Jihadin**

Wait...there their own Soverign Nation I believe within our Nation. Remember the debate we had on the Iriqoues Lacross team awhile back? They had their issue passport from the Rez but did not meet Federal Standards

I destroyed that word.....Great Spirit.I'm sorry

**ScootyPuffJunior**

whembly wrote:
Here's the question that I have...

Does anything think that the amount of land owned by the United States, especially in Nevada, is nothing less than obscene?

Why do they own that much land?

Is it because the feds have the land... because they want to?

Here's the danger... Federal ownership often brings with it federal sovereignty:

The Federal government is the single largest holder of real estate in the United States. Federal custody and control over this property brings with it a host of responsibilities, including in some cases federal criminal jurisdiction

So if left unchecked... this can have the affect of pushing aside the sovereignty of the states in favor of the federal government. Whether you value state sovereignty or not, it is not what the founders wanted.

I'm not saying the Feds should never own lands... I'm saying that we should think about this a bit and question why the Feds have all these lands.

To me, based on that image above, the Feds ought to justify holding those lands. If they can... great, let's move on. If not, then it should be reverted back to the states.

Remember the US. vs Texas case?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7001978707855678122&q=339+U.S.+707&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47

When Texas was admitted into the union, the prior sovereign was the Republic of Texas. And as an independent republic, Texas claimed some rights that no other state claimed and claimed that they continued to hold those rights even after joining the union. That's the inverse of what's going in my eyes.

So... this rancher's case... it's likely that the Ninth Circuit has got it wrong... but, I haven't seen anything if there's any way this is going to the SC.

I actually gave a somewhat detailed explanation as to how and why the federal government owns so much of Nevada in the last Bundy thread.

The land was acquired as a result of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. There was a bunch of territorial claims and federal troops had to step in. Eventually, they achieved statehood in 1864 and in doing so any unclaimed land was transferred to the federal government, as dictated in the Nevada State Constitution.

I agree, there is an issue to be made with how much the federal government owns in the western states and it is something that should be address, but it needs to be done by the rule of law, not with guns. However, it is unlikely Congress with ever take it seriously.

**LordofHats**

Jihadin wrote:
Wait...there their own Soverign Nation I believe within our Nation.

From what I can tell the land is held as a trust by the Tribe who exercises sovereign authority on the land, but the lands themselves are still (I think, it's apparently super complicated) owned by the US government via the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Remember the debate we had on the Iriqoues Lacross team awhile back? They had their issue passport from the Rez but did not meet Federal Standards

That was the UK that rejected their passports. We could have gotten them in, because the UK wanted assurances from the US that the passports valid, but we totally dragged our toes on vouching for the passports and that the team would be able to return to the US. The problem I think was that the 'Iroquois Nation' is not a body recognized internationally outside the US and Canada.

The irony of course being the Iroquois invented Lacross

I destroyed that word.....Great Spirit.I'm sorry

It's okay. Like most French words we commonly use as English speakers, Iroquois sounds nothing like it's spelled (I believe the French pronounciation is 'Ear-eh-quah').

**Jihadin**

Have an Exalt Lord for keeping me on track

**LordofHats**

Jihadin wrote:
Have an Exalt Lord for keeping me on track

It fits with my suave hipster lifestyle

**motyak**

LordofHats wrote:
suave hipster lifestyle

This. This is what the Bundy lot should have been focusing on. Not the internet, not the government. This is what is tearing our Western society apart.

**LordofHats**

Don't be jelly of my popped collars bro;

**motyak**

Dammit, I missed

**loki old fart**

LordofHats wrote:
Don't be jelly of my popped collars bro;

Have you had one of your ears lowered?
Your glasses are slanted.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:You deployed the state guard to protect rich people in Hollywood from their rightoues comeuppance DOWN WITH THE 1%!!! . You didn't start a war. Quit talking nonsense.

Frazzled wrote:Thats illegal, and no they didn't not outside of military installations.

Holy gak, you are unbelievable. Facts? Hah, I just pretend they don't exist and reiterate my (wrong) opinion! At this point I realize you are either trolling, or just being immune to reality in this thread, and in either case not really worth further engaging, but I want to make sure I point out how poor your arguments are for everyone else that might be reading, your cheap brand of refusing to to listen and goalpost moving.

Example one:

1.) You state that you don't send gunmen to enforce civil rental agreements.
2.) I state that we send armed sheriffs and deputies to enforce evictions and foreclosures in every city in the country, every day.
3.) You state "not with machine guns". Goalposts moved! See, I can try and say, "well, I didn't see any machine guns on the BLM, either" but then you will just move it to something else while being wrong, wrong, wrong.

Example two:

1.) I say it's legal to deploy troops for insurrection
2.) You say it's illegal
3.) I point out not only is it legal, we did it in 1992 in los angeles, and give an example, and LordofHats reiterates this later
4.) You say well, it wasn't troops, it was just state national guard. Goalposts moved! And, also, wrong. I pointed out that they were federalized national guard (which are, by definition, not state troops), and US Army and US Marines besides.
5.) You say well., they only deployed them to military installations. Goalposts moved! And also, wrong. Again, I can show more links of how, indeed, Army and Marines were deployed, but I know exactly how you will respond. You'll say, well, most of them stayed in a staging area! And while that is true, many did not, and the point is then made that we did indeed deploy troops in 1992, and that it is lawful to do so, and that we probably will do so again - both Bush and Obama signed various legislation actually expanding the scope of how regular troops can be deployed.

That's the Frazzled experience in this thread. Make a point, be wrong, move the goalposts, be wrong, and then reiterate your original point. I won't even get into the debunked Harry Reid story, which 20 seconds of googling shows is not true.

I don't know. Put me on ignore?

off? Whatever you desire. I say option 2 is Best Korea.
No one I knew at the time of the riots saw any Army or Marine troops. There were some guard troops. If they were there they were protecting the elites.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:
In the end, The government owns all land, they can take it as they please.......Oh god, I got an Idea. Have the congress use imminent domain on the bundy rance and say it is for a highway

No thats not correct, and dern ferrener thinking.

**LordofHats**

No one I knew at the time of the riots saw any Army or Marine troops. There were some guard troops

Well first off, it's probably not that hard to mistake a Guardsmen for standing Army XD

Second, there weren't that many of them. 7th Infantry was being wound down as part of the post-Cold War restructuring of the armed forces. 2nd Brigade probably wasn't brigade sized anymore. I can't find how many marines were sent, so it probably wasn't many. Most likely they were command elements with equipment needed for coordination more than guys in tanks waiting to start blowing stuff up.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Your glasses are slanted.

And where them straight like everyone else? pft

**loki old fart**

LordofHats wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Your glasses are slanted.

And where them straight like everyone else? pft

I have pictures of me wearing sunglasses, by the sea. But they won't appear on dakka, hahaha.

**streamdragon**

whembly wrote:
Here's the question that I have...

Does anything think that the amount of land owned by the United States, especially in Nevada, is nothing less than obscene?

Keep in mind that the graph also shows Federal Parks as owned land (because the Federal Government does, in fact, own that land). Yellowstone is ~2.2 million acres on its own. There are about 52 million acres of National Parks scattered throughout 27 states in the US, mostly in the west. Now throw in areas dedicated to Military bases, Airports, federal government offices and you can see the area owned by the federal government stacking up. It's being utilized or used by/for the people (ala National Parks), so this isn't just a case of "Dat Eeevil Federal Gubmint".

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Uh. so apparently the Bundy supporting militias have allegedly set up checkpoints, to verify residency of people passing through the area.

Not sure that was a good move.

**Co'tor Shas**

I'm pretty sure that's illegal. Why have they not sent in the NG at this point?

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's illegal. Why have they not sent in the NG at this point?

That's very illegal. Impersonation of officials is a bad thing y'know.

The local police need to deal with it first.. if not, send in the NG.

**Co'tor Shas**

If I was in the local sheriff's office I would be kind of scared. They are an armed militia.

**streamdragon**

Co'tor Shas wrote:I'm pretty sure that's illegal. Why have they not sent in the NG at this point?

whembly wrote:That's very illegal. Impersonation of officials is a bad thing y'know.

The local police need to deal with it first.. if not, send in the NG.

From the sound of the article it doesn't sound like they're technically impersonating an officer; they're basically setting up their own checkpoints on/around Bundy's property ,rather than pretending to be LEOs. It also sounds like from the article that they're not actually detaining anyone or doing anything illegal just yet. I don't know how long that will continue though.

**DarkTraveler777**

Check points, armed "militia", plans to use women and children as human shields, am I reading about events in Nevada or Syria?

**d-usa**

Bundy & Friends continue their 20 year tradition of screwing themselves...

**Frazzled**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's illegal. Why have they not sent in the NG at this point?

If armed civilians try to stop my vehicle I'd consider that an attempting kidnapping. They'd get a lot more than they bargained for.

**LordofHats**

Because in the end, extremist conservatives are too busy becoming fascists to explain to anyone why the government is so bad in any sensible way

I love these guys. Best entertainment I never paid for

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's illegal. Why have they not sent in the NG at this point?

If armed civilians try to stop my vehicle I'd consider that an attempting kidnapping. They'd get a lot more than they bargained for.

Send in the wiener dogs!

**Frazzled**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's illegal. Why have they not sent in the NG at this point?

If armed civilians try to stop my vehicle I'd consider that an attempting kidnapping. They'd get a lot more than they bargained for.

Send in the wiener dogs!

Full auto wiener dogs baby.

**loki old fart**

These guys are so screwed up, they should work for GW

**LordofHats**

loki old fart wrote:
These guys are so screwed up, they should work for GW

Lets not put any ideas in their head. The last thing we need are militias talking about Exterminatus XD