Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Feds do not own the Bundy land.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...not-own-the-land-where-his-cattle-grazes

All Federal rights were terminated when Nevada became a State.

LOL
Not true at all
If it were, none of this would have taken place

THINK

Can a private citizen buy this "Bundy land" in question from the BLM? Will a title company provide clear title and title insurance to this property? If Bundy could buy this land from the BLM (that's who owns it, right?) he could run as many cows as he wanted, and everyone would be happy, right? I wonder what this property would appraise for? Anyone know?

Yeah, that sure is news to Nevada...

I found it funny that the Author used an Anti-Federalist paper to say what the Constitution was for, when the Anti-Federalist papers were largely written to discredit the Constitution.

To understand exactly why tings were written the way they were concerning this issue, consider Federalist Paper 43...

It's "public land"
It's not for sale now

The Fish and Wildlife sells land here, can the BLM sell this specific "Bundy land"? The question wasn't if it was for sale now, it was more along the lines of can a private citizen buy it, and can the BLM sell it? Will a title company give title insurance and clear title to this specific land? Thanks...

If it could be bought, I imagine someone would have tried that by now.
Why not ask the BLM?
They are the only ones who can answer you
http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en.html

I'm sorry. I must be mistaken. I thought you had knowledge of this particular case. There's some good reading on the Hage cases and history for a little background info.

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2014/04/13/

United States v. Gardner
107 F.3d 1314 (9th Cir. 1997)
�Historically, when the US acquired new territory (like the acquisition of Nevada from Mexico), the general process was that all of the land was considered the property of the Federal government, and they would divvy it up and sell most of it off to private individuals, and give the rest to the State.
◦This land sale included most of the land acquired early in US history (like the Louisiana Purchase), but as time went on, the Federal government retained more and more of the land for military bases, national forests etc.
◾For example, over 80% of the land in Nevada has been retained by the Federal government.
�Gardner owned a cattle ranch in Nevada next to a National Forest. He had a permit that allowed his cattle to graze in the Forest.
�There was a forest fire that burned the land Gardner's cows were grazing on. The US Forest Service reseeded the area, and closed it to grazing for two years in order to allow the land to recover.
�Gardner disobeyed the order and sent his cattle in. The US Forest Service fined Gardner for trespassing. Gardner refused to pay the fine and the US Forest Service sued.
◦Gardner argued that the Federal government didn't have title to the land, and so he couldn't be convicted of trespassing.
◾Gardner argued that when the US acquired the land from Mexico, it was only to be held in trust for the creation of future States, the Federal government didn't have the right to retain it for its own purposes, they were required to sell it off to private individuals.
�The Trial Court upheld the fine. Gardner appealed.
�The Appellate Court affirmed.
◦Gardner had argued that the decision in Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan (44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845)), meant that the US only held land in trust, but the Appellate Court distinguished that decision by saying that that only applied to land acquired from the 13 original States (mostly Virginia and Georgia), and it did not apply to land acquired by the US later.
◾In those cases, the Federal government wasn't the original owner of the land, it was owned by the States. As part of the agreement to give the land to the Federal government, the Federal government agreed to hold it in trust.
◾In this case, the Federal government directly acquired Nevada from Mexico, so they didn't have to abide by the same agreement they made in Pollard.
◦The Court found that under the Property Clause (Article IV, �3, cl. 2) the Federal government has the authority to administer Federal lands anyway they choose, including the establishment of national forests and stopping Gardner's cattle from grazing there.
◦Gardner argued that the Equal Footing Doctrine meant that the Federal government was required to give Nevada the same rights as they gave other States, but the Court found that only applied to political sovereignty, not to economic or physical characteristics.
◾Gardner's argument was that the land in the eastern US was mostly owned by the States or private landholders. Therefore it wasn't fair that most of the land in the western US was mostly owned by the Federal government.

1. Govt says its their land,having acquired/purchased it from Mexico for approximately 15-18 million dollars in 1848.

2. The US purchase predated the Bundy family and perhaps even Mormonism in that region.

3. Nevada says its the government's land and reaffirmed such in their Ordinance provision of their state constitution.

4. There has never been a Nevada vs. US litigation as Nevada knows the ownership of the land is well settled.

5. 16,000 other ranchers have concluded its the government's land and they are paying the nominal leasing fees.

6. The Nevada Cattleman's Association will not support Bundy.

7. Bundy says its not the governments land even though 2 Federal courts have ruled otherwise.

Excellent piece.

Probably not many will bother to read this... But, I'll bet others are about now.

http://4thst8.wordpress.com/2012/02...rtue-when-your-rights-are-being-ignored/

I'd like to hear what some of our resident lawyers think about this. Does it make a difference in Mr.Bundy's fight against the Federal Government?

Bart...one can't unilaterally void a contract. What has Nevada done to judicially seek back the land for the state? What has Nevada attempted to negotiate with the Feds in regards a purchase of the US owned property? The short answer is nothing for they are well aware the Fed government owns the land and at this juncture, it appears the US isn't selling.

I don't see this guy much different than anybody else who runs cattle on somebody elses land and hopes nobody notices. Happens all the time around here. The percentage of crooks in the cattle business ain't any lower than any other.

Setting aside emotions, I'd have to agree Pat.

Below is a Breitbart article which is rather thorough. Of some significance is the fact there are court pleadings filed by all parties that are available for viewing.

Much of Bundy's problem was that he allowed his unbranded cattle to venture on lands outside his allotment. He admitted so under oath in court. Had he paid his lease fees like the 16000 other cattle ranchers had paid, he'd have some ray of hope but since he refused to do so, he lost that privilege, as well.

Read the artcle, review some pleadings and draw your own conclusions. The article covers the Reid rumor, as well.
====

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Breitbart-Texas/2014/Bundy/Bundy-Ranch-Sign.jpg

link no workee...

Ratified as of 1996

I apologize. Don't know if it's Breitbart or me. Try this.
====

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bundy-Ranch