Here's the deal...This all relates to Commercial Law. Our Courts uphold Commercial Law without question. If you sign a Contract to give up your first born then it is still held as needing to be honored and due by the signer.
An example would be the Old Spanish Land Grants that we had to purchase even though we had Won a war in Texas and redrawn the borders. Our own Constitution outlaws "Ex post facto" laws...Period.
So if a Rancher whether right or wrong has "Grandfather Rights" through the State or through a contract with an Indian Reserve it has legal standing and cannot be challenged.
This is where we are now with this Hammond situation and the Bundy situation. No matter what happened they are in the right and the Government has absolutely no right to even think about placing retroactive regulations on these old contracts.
This is a Constitutional fact. The most recent example of abuse of this is the State of California and the new Diesel Air Quality Standards.
They can indeed require any new vehicles to meet their standards but it is totally unconstitutional for them to make everyone "Retrofit" the vehicles or Engines that are already out there in use built prior to when the law was placed into effect.
This is Ex post Facto and Retroactive and completely unconstitutional whether we like it or not per the Constitution Article 1 Sec 9 Clause 3.
When we start to turn our heads to these facts we are all done for as owners of Firearms. Because we are next...
There's a classic example of a complete misunderstanding of the law and "rights" vs a contract.
Ex post facto laws are retroactive and unconstitutional. However, all the way back to 1798 the Constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws was determined to be only applicable to criminal law. I.e., the Congress and by incorporation under the 14th Amendment the states cannot pass a law and make something criminally illegal that was previously legal and THEN prosecute prior actions when they were legal under the law. That would be an ex post facto law. Congress and the states are well within their powers to change laws and require compliance AFTER passage of said laws.
Further, this has absolutely nothing to so with any contractual agreement between the Feds (or any other party) as landowners/landlords from renegotiating lease agreements, or enforcing change provisions in said agreements. THAT is applicable to the various ranchers, including the Bundys. The Bundys do not have a "right" as defined and protected under the Constitution, but they have a contract with the Federal government under a lease agreement. To think that they have a "right" to do whatever they want on certain lands because they have had a lease for some period of time is akin to thinking that a rentor/tenant has the "right" to do whatever they want to a property even after the landlord and owner has refused to renew the contract, or is changing certain provisions of that contract for continued use. This is further compounded when rentors/leasors like the Bundys then refuse to pay their fees as determined in the lease agreement.
To conflate Rights, such as the Constitutionally enumerated and protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms, with a contractual interest is a severe flaw in understanding the Constitution, the law, and the situations at hand.
