Generally there are two sides, but not this time. If you care to learn.
Militia takes over wildlife refuge headquarters
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
Generally there are two sides, but not this time. If you care to learn.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Yes, sagebrush, there are. And often one side is factual and rational and the other is based on false assertions, faulty logic, and misconceptions.
Specifically, I watched and listened to rancher Finnicum's video to which you provided the link. It is on his website. He was well-spoken and very likable, down-to-earth, ostensibly a hard-working cattleman, who cared for and valued the land. However, for him to provide a panoramic view of that huge grassy acreage and assert that it is part of his ranch, leading to the assumption he could claim it because first of all the federal government can't own land, secondly he owned the surface grazing rights with grass and water for his cattle, thirdly that he "squatted" there and cared for the land (his right with a federal grazing lease) ... therefore he owned the land and it was part of his ranch. If you cannot recognize the fallacy in that argument, then the discussion is for naught.
Next if you will read the short dissertation appearing in the thread recently posted by our gracious and learned HuntTalk host, you will understand the fallacy in the "unconstitutionality" assertion by Ms. Hall. Again, as you pointed out, there are always two sides ... albeit one side is often wacky. (And obviously Ms. Hall expressed her wacky conspiracy / murder theory prior to the video being aired which showed the shooting.)
With respect to Robert "Lavoy" Finnicum, may he rest in peace in such a serene pasture without the political turmoil and stress of his last weeks on earth.
Last edited:
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
I have a dream!
I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but if you rely on Hall to try sway me on anything Constitutional, you may as well rely on Hillary's faded recount of Benghazi. She is the most discredited blowhard buffoon on this topic and those who use her as any sort of legal expert do so at the risk of their own credibility.
If she feels so strongly about this and is such a Constitutional legal scholar, one quickly wonders, "Why is she not using her self-proclaimed Constitutional expertise to get this issue overturned according to the Constitution she claims disallows it?" If she had done so, she probably could have saved the trouble of the entire Refuge Occupancy and maybe even Finicum's life.
Easy answer is that she is a farce. She might be intelligent, but when it comes to this topic, she is to study of Constitutional law what Don Peay is to the principle of fair allocation of public wildlife.
Fine to have a discussion of the topic, but show me one single case where the self-proclaimed Constitutional expert has ever represented a case on this topic and prevailed? Just one, that's all I ask. Show me one single peer reviewed legal article she has had published on the topic. I can save the effort; there are none.
If she is the legal counsel the Bundy crowd is relying upon, they better get accustomed to occupying another Federal property, Leavenworth, for a long, long, time. Gawd, I hope they hire her. Hell, I would probably add some money to the kitty to help them hire her.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Dude, this is nothing more than the OPINION of a guys ideology added to his beliefs of what our founding fathers wanted. If you really care then learn the meaning of the constitution, and the constitution laws that are added. Jesh!
utah400elk
Well-known member
I have put a ton of time, love and devotion to my favorite hunting areas. I constantly clean up trash I find as I hike. It is my spot. Does all this militia crap mean that I have a legitimate claim to this land? To me...this is simply people trying to interpret things in a way/manner to get what they want (free land).
JWP58
Banned
So I'm supposed to believe a sovereign citizen attorney that is claiming eye witnesses saw something that didn't happen???? Lol ok.
teamhoyt
Well-known member
If I knew I could buy some cows and graze them on federal land for a very low rate and then get to claim ownership of the land I would've done it long ago! It amazes me that these ungrateful entitled bastards want this land as their own when without the initial grazing leases and ability to use this public land for any length of time wouldve amounted to one thing.... They would be running way fewer cattle on their deeded land or paying much more to graze on a neighbors. If paying $1.69/cow/calf pair a month is all it costs to "own" this land I'm buying 20 pair and going to head to the dufree's! These guys are twisted in every way.
sagebrush
Active member
I am not an attorney but I do know that when you purchase property you are not purchasing the dirt but rather a bundle of rights which may include water, mineral, timber, etc and these rights may also include grazing rights on federal lands. Finnicum's assertion is he purchased his ranch with grazing rights appurtenant. I far as I can discern, whether or not he had grazing rights is not in dispute. The only question is if the BLM can prevent him from exercising his rights while the grazing is in prime condition on an allotment he has not grazed, by his own choice, in six years. The situation then starts going sideways when he refuses to pay the BLM for rights which pre-existed the formation of the BLM, which he and his predecessors did not assign away and which the BLM is temporarily refusing him to exercise.
This doesn't make too much difference to people that live in apartments or subdivisions where water comes out of a pipe owned by the city, sewage goes into a pipe owned by the city and meat comes from a styrofoam container. To a rancher that purchased the land for the purpose of producing an income, it makes a huge difference. The problem is the people writing the regulations these days have little to no oversight from elected officials subject to re-election and/or recall. They pump out regulations at an ever increasing rate with which it is impossible to keep up. And they live in the city far removed from the people whose livelyhood is affected.
Just last year, the EPA tried to sneak through a regulation to control all surface water in the country not just federal waterways. This regulation would require landowners to seek permission from and pay a fee to the EPA before any improvement or income producing activity could be undertaken if the land has any seasonal water standing or flowing over it. That's pretty much all land. If I wanted to raise chickens, cattle or keep other livestock, my right to do so, even though my local zoning permits such activity, could be denied by the EPA. This all because it is the only way the EPA can control the quality of the water in the USA. Thank heavens word leaked out and congress passed a bill prohibiting such regulation without its prior approval.
I know I will find few if any sympathetic readers here. Seems like most think the federal government can do no wrong, especially if the actions promote their agenda. The same government that can take away grazing rights without recourse can also take away other rights you may want to keep. In such an environment, there is nothing to stop a government agency from deciding the highest and best use of elk is to be food for wolves. Not that different from how the federal government treats ranchers.
I know many will say the ranchers' rights have already been adjudicated and the court found against them. This is also one of Finnicum's assertions, one must appear before a federal judge that is seated to ensure the continuing overreach of the federal bureaucracy. Still doesn't make it right. I just can't bring myself to bow down before the golden bull so I guess I'll just have to take my place in the fire.
Flame away.
This doesn't make too much difference to people that live in apartments or subdivisions where water comes out of a pipe owned by the city, sewage goes into a pipe owned by the city and meat comes from a styrofoam container. To a rancher that purchased the land for the purpose of producing an income, it makes a huge difference. The problem is the people writing the regulations these days have little to no oversight from elected officials subject to re-election and/or recall. They pump out regulations at an ever increasing rate with which it is impossible to keep up. And they live in the city far removed from the people whose livelyhood is affected.
Just last year, the EPA tried to sneak through a regulation to control all surface water in the country not just federal waterways. This regulation would require landowners to seek permission from and pay a fee to the EPA before any improvement or income producing activity could be undertaken if the land has any seasonal water standing or flowing over it. That's pretty much all land. If I wanted to raise chickens, cattle or keep other livestock, my right to do so, even though my local zoning permits such activity, could be denied by the EPA. This all because it is the only way the EPA can control the quality of the water in the USA. Thank heavens word leaked out and congress passed a bill prohibiting such regulation without its prior approval.
I know I will find few if any sympathetic readers here. Seems like most think the federal government can do no wrong, especially if the actions promote their agenda. The same government that can take away grazing rights without recourse can also take away other rights you may want to keep. In such an environment, there is nothing to stop a government agency from deciding the highest and best use of elk is to be food for wolves. Not that different from how the federal government treats ranchers.
I know many will say the ranchers' rights have already been adjudicated and the court found against them. This is also one of Finnicum's assertions, one must appear before a federal judge that is seated to ensure the continuing overreach of the federal bureaucracy. Still doesn't make it right. I just can't bring myself to bow down before the golden bull so I guess I'll just have to take my place in the fire.
Flame away.
npaden
Well-known member
Just one question for you Sagebrush.
When you are buying a ranch, do you pay the same price for the "deeded" land as you do for the federal land grazing "rights"? Last time I looked most ranches are essentially priced based on the deeded land although they do allow a very small amount to be allocated based on existing grazing "permits".
When you are buying a ranch, do you pay the same price for the "deeded" land as you do for the federal land grazing "rights"? Last time I looked most ranches are essentially priced based on the deeded land although they do allow a very small amount to be allocated based on existing grazing "permits".
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
All layed out very well, sagebrush. The fallacy lies in your unwillingness to acknowledge how the laws, regulations, and policies are derived. No one will deny or argue with you concerning the generally perceived unfairness and seemingly onerous provisions which have been put it place. The differences lie in your denial of the processes. Whether they be the legislative processes that are grounded on "by the people, for the people" through a representative democracy (albeit somewhat out-of-touch congress) or through the judicial system that interprets the laws and regulations. Regardless, there is recourse which does include peaceful gatherings to protest and certainly action through your elected representation or through the courts ... but it's outcome is never good when wannabee militia decide to set their jaws and protest by challenging law enforcement with loaded firearms, particularly when they carry the US Constitution in their vest pocket but as they speak of it and of what they think the forefathers intended, then come across as though not having completed the 3rd grade, let alone US History and basic Constitutional meaning.
For those of us who have worn the uniform, sworn allegiance, studied the US Constitution and how the government works at all levels, and have put ourselves in harms way on a foreign unfriendly soil, these wannabee ignorant militiamen really piss us off. 'Sorry for the rant ... NO i'm not!
For those of us who have worn the uniform, sworn allegiance, studied the US Constitution and how the government works at all levels, and have put ourselves in harms way on a foreign unfriendly soil, these wannabee ignorant militiamen really piss us off. 'Sorry for the rant ... NO i'm not!
Rancho Loco
Well-known member
People calling it an ambush and a murder are delusional. If it were an ambush, nobody would have came out of that truck alive. I'm actually surprised the cops didn't hose that truck down as soon as it tried to blast the snow bank.
This +100%!!!
I'm going to have to start using phrases that I did for my nieces & nephews/little kids, with adults now it seems..................
"What part of NO do you not understand?"
sagebrush
Active member
Sorry I came across as being simple or uneducated.
I am familiar with the Taylor Grazing Act and how it was sold as being for the beneficial interest of the ranchers. Just thought I would shine a light on another facet of the situation.
I have the utmost respect for those who serve in the military to stand between us and those that would do us harm. My son was a helicopter door gunner in Afghanistan, so I know full well the sacrifice made by our military and their families. Likewise for LEO's. Sad that our federal government may order them to be in a position contrary to their sworn oath. I'm proud of those county sheriffs and county commissioners that had the courage to stand against the federal agents.
Hence the reason I stayed out of the discussion on this thread. I figured my input would be offensive to the supporters of big government.
I am familiar with the Taylor Grazing Act and how it was sold as being for the beneficial interest of the ranchers. Just thought I would shine a light on another facet of the situation.
I have the utmost respect for those who serve in the military to stand between us and those that would do us harm. My son was a helicopter door gunner in Afghanistan, so I know full well the sacrifice made by our military and their families. Likewise for LEO's. Sad that our federal government may order them to be in a position contrary to their sworn oath. I'm proud of those county sheriffs and county commissioners that had the courage to stand against the federal agents.
Hence the reason I stayed out of the discussion on this thread. I figured my input would be offensive to the supporters of big government.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
So if you like public lands, staying in public hands, Your a supporter of big government?
If you call BS on the Bundy's cause, then your a supporter of big government?
One could make a case that if you believe the opposite, you also could carry a label. LOL.:hump:
JWP58
Banned
Im no supporter of big government, I'd love to see the dept of education and epa done away with. The IRS is out of control and seemingly answers to nobody. The ATF got caught smuggling arms to Mexican cartels in an effort to blame the 2nd amendment.
HOWEVER. I am not going to get behind some crackpot sovereign citizen group that only has their own agenda and bank accounts in mind when they do asinine things like take up arms and commit crimes while hiding behind a document they refuse to comprehend and catch phrase words.."liberty" "freedom" "sovereign" "vanilla creamer".
I want the public to retain the lands they have a right to, and that will not happen at the state level, its been proven. Access will be restricted, and it will be sold off. No thanks. Keep OUR land OUR'S.
HOWEVER. I am not going to get behind some crackpot sovereign citizen group that only has their own agenda and bank accounts in mind when they do asinine things like take up arms and commit crimes while hiding behind a document they refuse to comprehend and catch phrase words.."liberty" "freedom" "sovereign" "vanilla creamer".
I want the public to retain the lands they have a right to, and that will not happen at the state level, its been proven. Access will be restricted, and it will be sold off. No thanks. Keep OUR land OUR'S.
Last edited:
Are you saying anyone that doesn't support the farm ninjas is pro big government?
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
It's been a very long time, but if I recollect correct, it was ranchers themselves that supported the Taylor Grazing Act. They were full-fledged participants in and creators of something called "The Tragedy of the Commons." They called on Big Government to come in and unfck the mess they had made of an Eden they had been given after Big Government cleared it of Indians and predators.
Those who profess to be the greatest critics of Big Government are actually the single greatest beneficiaries and creators of it. They did not get where they are as self-made men, pulling themselves up by their own boot straps. I'd prove my point with examples far beyond, and more exemplary than the TGA but I haven't had my coffee yet.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
There is no group that shares a bigger sense of being "Entitled" to something that's not theirs. Hows that for a label?
Similar threads
