24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 12
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,484
Campfire Kahuna
Online Content
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,484
Originally Posted by JoeBob
That is the thing I don't get. Hunting is the next target. The people in charge of BLM lands really don't want ANYBODY out there. Lots of them would like to see it a nature preserve with no one being allowed in, EVER. But, they'll pick the easy targets first on their way to getting there and hunters will be the next targets. Hide and watch.


Absolutely correct.

They already ARE targeting hunting and shooting.

There are those that feel that as long as THEY are not in the crosshairs then they back what the govt does. By the time that alarm bell rings in their heads, it will be too late. frown


Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
BP-B2

Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,864
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,864
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Originally Posted by HugAJackass
The new land owners, which now happen to be the Federal Government, are saying "Get off my lawn!"
Could you show me in the US Constitution where it authorizes the US Government to own land other than the District of Columbia, military bases, post offices and post roads, and other authorized government buildings.


5th Amendment


"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Turdlike, by default.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 10,738
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 10,738
Originally Posted by jorgeI
I don't know what to tell you except no sane person wants anarchy...


Your absolutely right, but the government seems content with anarchy?

Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,484
Campfire Kahuna
Online Content
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,484
Originally Posted by HugAJackass
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Originally Posted by HugAJackass
The new land owners, which now happen to be the Federal Government, are saying "Get off my lawn!"
Could you show me in the US Constitution where it authorizes the US Government to own land other than the District of Columbia, military bases, post offices and post roads, and other authorized government buildings.


5th Amendment


Not hardly.

The exercise of eminent domain is for taking private property for the good of the public WITH due process.

In other words, it has to be condemned and judged and accepted as for "the public good". Then, fair compensation must be made.


Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,864
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,864
Yep, but they still end up owning the land.

TRH asked where in the Constitution it said that the US Government could own land.



"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Turdlike, by default.
IC B2

Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Of course, since the US Constitution was brought up, are there any restrictions or prohibitions on the Feds (or the states for that matter) on owning land?

The answer is: no.

I find it incredulous that sportsmen would decree public lands when Teddy Roosevelt's greatest legacy to all of us - especially sportsmen - was the creation of the public lands system we have in the US today; one that makes the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation possible. To have a problem with that, and then to still be a sportsmen, boggles my mind.


Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,940
T
Campfire Sage
Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,940
Originally Posted by HugAJackass
Yep, but they still end up owning the land.

TRH asked where in the Constitution it said that the US Government could own land.

I never said any such thing. I gave several situations in which land ownership by the US Government was authorized by the US Constitution. What's not authorized is land ownership by the US Government of any other sort, such as the land presently under discussion.

Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,864
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,864
Now you are saying that you didn't demand that I show you where the US Constitution authorizes the Government to own land?

Here it is in your own words...

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Could you show me in the US Constitution where it authorizes the US Government to own land other than the District of Columbia, military bases, post offices and post roads, and other authorized government buildings.


The answer is still the same. The 5th Amendment.


"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Turdlike, by default.
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 66,383
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 66,383
5th Amendment [/quote]

Not hardly.

Originally Posted by rockinbbar
[quote=JoeBob]That is the thing I don't get. Hunting is the next target. The people in charge of BLM lands really don't want ANYBODY out there. Lots of them would like to see it a nature preserve with no one being allowed in, EVER. But, they'll pick the easy targets first on their way to getting there and hunters will be the next targets. Hide and watch

The exercise of eminent domain is for taking private property for the good of the public WITH due process.

In other words, it has to be condemned and judged and accepted as for "the public good". Then, fair compensation must be made.



---------- ----------------


Oh you mean like this: a guy gets to use E D against another property owner so he can build himself a friggin shopping center ?


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London












.

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,940
T
Campfire Sage
Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,940
Originally Posted by 4ager
Of course, since the US Constitution was brought up, are there any restrictions or prohibitions on the Feds (or the states for that matter) on owning land?

The answer is: no.
I'm a little surprised that you would make this mistake, as ordinarily you're very well informed.

The powers of the Federal Government are restricted to only those delegated to it by the states and the people via the US Constitution. In other words, it's a government of strictly limited and enumerated powers. The Founders well understood this, but fearing that future generations might forget it, or be deceived, they insisted that one of the ten articles of the Bill of Rights should lay this out in clear language, and that took the form of the Tenth Amendment.

State governments are different, however, in that they were established as governments of plenary power, apart from specific powers denied to them by the US Constitution and by the various state Constitutions. In other words, the state governments have every power conceivable, except those prohibited to them, while the US Government (precisely the opposite) has no powers at all, except those delegated to it by the US Constitution.

Madison also makes this point clear in Federalist No. 45, which was written before the Bill of Rights.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

IC B3

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,940
T
Campfire Sage
Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,940
Originally Posted by HugAJackass
Now you are saying that you didn't demand that I show you where the US Constitution authorizes the Government to own land?
I have to admit I didn't realize you were capable of this level of disingenuousness. Were you unable to read the words you left out, i.e., "... other than the District of Columbia, military bases, post offices and post roads, and other authorized government buildings." You included them in the quote, but your statement above was composed as if you weren't aware of them. They make all the difference in the world.

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 28,172
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 28,172
Originally Posted by steve4102
It appears that Mr Bundy is just another guy trying to avoid paying the same fees and cost as everyone else in his region, stealing would be a good word.

What he is doing is akin to a logger going on to public land and harvesting timber without permission and without paying Stumpage fees, stealing is the word.

You don't own the land, you can't use the land without permission or without paying for it. Just cuz you have always broken the Law doesn't mean you are above the law.

He is a thief and now he is paying for it.


This is exactly what's going on. I've followed this from the start, and he has been stealing grazing on our lands for years. Grazing fees go to management of a fragile resource, given that the annual precipitation is only about 5". Deserts are the most fragile systems, and they can and are being damaged by guys like this one.

I'm all for open range, but that range belongs to all of us as a resource. He has no right to use it at his whim for his economic generator.


Hunt with Class and Classics

Religion: A founder of The Church of Spray and Pray

Acquit v. t. To render a judgment in a murder case in San Francisco... EQUAL, adj. As bad as something else. Ambrose Bierce “The Devil's Dictionary”







Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Originally Posted by luv2safari
Originally Posted by steve4102
It appears that Mr Bundy is just another guy trying to avoid paying the same fees and cost as everyone else in his region, stealing would be a good word.

What he is doing is akin to a logger going on to public land and harvesting timber without permission and without paying Stumpage fees, stealing is the word.

You don't own the land, you can't use the land without permission or without paying for it. Just cuz you have always broken the Law doesn't mean you are above the law.

He is a thief and now he is paying for it.


This is exactly what's going on. I've followed this from the start, and he has been stealing grazing on our lands for years. Grazing fees go to management of a fragile resource, given that the annual precipitation is only about 5". Deserts are the most fragile systems, and they can and are being damaged by guys like this one.

I'm all for open range, but that range belongs to all of us as a resource. He has no right to use it at his whim for his economic generator.


Exactly.


Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,484
Campfire Kahuna
Online Content
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,484
I don't have anything against the government owning public lands. It is the management of that land that I have a problem with.

Anyone that doesn't see what the special interest environmentalists are doing, and the instrument of all our evictions IS the BLM and Forest Service, has not lived in around, or dealt with any aspect of the management of those two agencies.

I can post story after story of battles just like Bundy's where hunters and ranchers and loggers are forced out because of an owl, or a turtle, or a salamander, or a lizard.

Holy Christ guys...If you think he's just trying to avoid paying fees for grazing permits, you need to go re-read the story... His permit was revoked and cut because of a tortoise. That family had ranched it since 1877. If it's so phooking threated by cattle, then why is it still there in the first place?

For cryin' out loud, read the damned story before accusing someone of trying to steal something....

http://www.infowars.com/armed-feds-prepare-for-showdown-with-nevada-cattle-rancher/

This battle has been going on for 20 years. It wasn't him that started it. He is standing up for what he believes is right.


Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043
I
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
I
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043
His permit was revoked and cut because of a tortoise.
===========

No it wasn't. Someone needs to fully read the entire story,that's for sure.

He pushed his selfish assed luck and got away with it for a while at the expense of others.

It wasn't his land and it certainly wasn't his rules.



The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.
William Arthur Ward




Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,724
J
Campfire Outfitter
Online Content
Campfire Outfitter
J
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,724
I read a post on Facebook from his daughter. The grazing rights in that allotment were his exclusively. His grandfather first purchased them in 1887 and they have been in the family ever since. They were allowed to make improvements build fences, drill wells, and all the normal things associated with a long term lease or ownership. BLM tried to buy the current guy out at a fraction of the market rate. He refused to be bought out like his everyone else around had been. He wanted to ranch. So, failing to buy him out, BLM started trying to run him out and started doing things that actually interfered with his ranching and making it more difficult. He quit paying when they did that. Then they tried the endangered species route.

This is just an episode in a long history of the BLM trying to get rid of ranching in the area. He played into their hands by not paying his fees, but one can understand the frustration.

Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,864
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,864
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Originally Posted by HugAJackass
Now you are saying that you didn't demand that I show you where the US Constitution authorizes the Government to own land?
I have to admit I didn't realize you were capable of this level of disingenuousness. Were you unable to read the words you left out, i.e., "... other than the District of Columbia, military bases, post offices and post roads, and other authorized government buildings." You included them in the quote, but your statement above was composed as if you weren't aware of them. They make all the difference in the world.


No, it's not disingenuous in the least. The Constitution does not list any of the things you mentioned in the 5th Amendment, so despite what you imagine, they make zero difference.



"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Turdlike, by default.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,940
T
Campfire Sage
Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,940
Originally Posted by HugAJackass
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Originally Posted by HugAJackass
Now you are saying that you didn't demand that I show you where the US Constitution authorizes the Government to own land?
I have to admit I didn't realize you were capable of this level of disingenuousness. Were you unable to read the words you left out, i.e., "... other than the District of Columbia, military bases, post offices and post roads, and other authorized government buildings." You included them in the quote, but your statement above was composed as if you weren't aware of them. They make all the difference in the world.
No, it's not disingenuous in the least. The Constitution does not list any of the things you mentioned in the 5th Amendment, so despite what you imagine, they make zero difference.
Article I, Section 8.

"Congress shall have the power ... to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession [read "gift"] of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,902
C
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
C
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,902
Originally Posted by jorgeI
He's a mormon so he's halfway to kookdom as it is...


Don't know this case or the specifics, and I ain't Cuban or Irish Catholic, or Southern Baptist, or Midwestern Lutheran, or Northeast or Northwest Episcopalion, or Orthodox Jew, or whatever...but that quote up above should be recognized for what it is...horseschidt...

Last edited by chas05; 04/08/14. Reason: and I ain't Mormon, I'm nothing my lack of faith comes from [bleep] like this





Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043
I
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
I
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043
His elementary understanding of the constitution and related Articles always has him stumbling,especially when it pertains to nuanced issues which requires further study, such as land ceded to the US, much like this BLM land in Nevada.

Link him a copy of essay 43 of the Federalist Papers and invite him to educate himself.

Last edited by isaac; 04/08/14.

The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.
William Arthur Ward




Page 4 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 12

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
567 members (222ND, 007FJ, 160user, 10gaugeman, 17CalFan, 1Longbow, 56 invisible), 2,343 guests, and 1,088 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,597
Posts18,398,204
Members73,815
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.150s Queries: 15 (0.004s) Memory: 0.9240 MB (Peak: 1.1027 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-28 12:42:33 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS