http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/07/nevada-officials-blast-feds-over-treatment-cattle-rancher-cliven-bundy/
Bureau of Land Management appear to have declared war on the last rancher in Clark County Nevada.
http://rt.com/usa/nevada-ranch-armed-feds-520/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/10/tense-video-feds-taser-pro-nevada-rancher-protester-during-clash/
The video is of protesters who aren't necessarily kin of the rancher involved. Fifty seven year old woman thrown to ground by Fed storm troopers. A dog is commanded to attack a pregnant woman. Is this our government that is supposed to compassionately solve all our problems?
http://www.infowars.com/cliven-bundy-calls-on-sheriff-to-start-arresting-blm-feds/
Militia involved. Sheriff called on to arrest feds. When or will this erupt into a shooting war?
Originally posted by normbenignA guy wants to illegally graze his cattle on federal lands without paying required fees. He raises flimsy legal claims to do so that are rejected by the courts, but still refuses to abide by the law.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/07/nevada-officials-blast-feds-over-treatment-cattle-rancher-cliven-bundy/
Bureau of Land Management appear to have declared war on the last rancher in Clark County Nevada.
http://rt.com/usa/nevada-ranch-armed-feds-520/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/10/tense-video-feds-taser-pro-nevada-rancher-p ...[text shortened]... litia involved. Sheriff called on to arrest feds. When or will this erupt into a shooting war?
He should be under arrest like other common lawbreakers rather than being touted as some kind of hero.
Originally posted by no1marauderHow and why does the federal government own land? Other than the District of Columbia?
A guy wants to illegally graze his cattle on federal lands without paying required fees. He raises flimsy legal claims to do so that are rejected by the courts, but still refuses to abide by the law.
He should be under arrest like other common lawbreakers rather than being touted as some kind of hero.
Originally posted by normbenignArticle 4, Section 3 of the US Constitution:
How and why does the federal government own land? Other than the District of Columbia?
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
And many, many, many laws putting that provision into effect.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't think as simple as your argument, but it's not as obvious a case of trampling rights as the Bundy family would have you believe, either. The truth is somewhere in the middle - but this looks like a Ruby Ridge in the making.
A guy wants to illegally graze his cattle on federal lands without paying required fees. He raises flimsy legal claims to do so that are rejected by the courts, but still refuses to abide by the law.
He should be under arrest like other common lawbreakers rather than being touted as some kind of hero.
Originally posted by sasquatch672How so? According to the Fox article:
I don't think as simple as your argument, but it's not as obvious a case of trampling rights as the Bundy family would have you believe, either. The truth is somewhere in the middle - but this looks like a Ruby Ridge in the making.
Since then, he has lost two federal court rulings — and a judge last October prohibited him from physically interfering with any seizure or roundup operation.
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's the how. How about the why?
Article 4, Section 3 of the US Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
And many, many, many laws putting that provision into effect.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe argument appears to be regarding grazing rights, and longstanding understanding of them. This appears to have been a decades long disagreement, not just the last two court cases. The federal land grabs out west are legendary. I want to know more, before the shooting starts.
How so? According to the Fox article:
Since then, he has lost two federal court rulings — and a judge last October prohibited him from physically interfering with any seizure or roundup operation.
Originally posted by sasquatch672This argument has been brewing for a couple of decades. Now under the pretext of protecting an obscure species, BLM decides to send in an army of heavily armed cattle rustlers. Why now?
I don't think as simple as your argument, but it's not as obvious a case of trampling rights as the Bundy family would have you believe, either. The truth is somewhere in the middle - but this looks like a Ruby Ridge in the making.