• Nevada Range War revives Sagebrush Rebellion
    47 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;44567901] the United States owns everything within its borders. Your property is not yours to do whatever you please with; you must comply with laws because it really belongs to the state, which has the authority to take it from you if deemed totally necessary[/quote] What a cheery thought.
[QUOTE=Aman;44567930]What a cheery thought.[/QUOTE] it's the same thing everywhere in the developed world, really. most governments have similar clauses that require them to compensate the previous land owner and the public use must be for the benefit of the public, although that is a rather broad term.
[QUOTE=Aman;44567558]It's just a bloated bureaucracy trying to sustain itself by fleecing citizens. It has to feed more because it grows larger. It's like an organism.[/QUOTE] Sounds like someone just aced 10th grade Sociology class.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44567727]You're partially correct. If Nevada wouldn't have been accepted into the U.S. as a state, the land would have belonged to the federal government. The equal footing doctrine states that all states enter the union on equal footing as the original states in all respects whatsoever. This has been used in the supreme court by numerous states before to assert that they have ownership of the land inside of their borders as long as they are a part of the U.S. It's not really a belief, more of a proven precedent in the supreme court. And none of the money he owes would ever see the "taxpayers". None of those fines/fees go anywhere near the general funds of the U.S. They all stay in the BLM to manage grazing property. He really owes his fellow ranchers those millions. Also, "righteous cause" is a subjective thing. You might not think it's a righteous cause, but to those who want less government interference and more freedom to live life the way they want to, it's a very righteous cause, and an opportunity to express how they feel.[/QUOTE] You, too, are partially correct. While the state owns and manages the land within its borders as much as any other state, the federal government does manage plenty of land across the country in many different states with agreements to do so, as I am sure Nevada had with the BLM here. And if the BLM does in fact have jurisdiction - which they do, because they wouldn't care about this guy if he wasn't on their land - then they have the power here to fine him. I don't see why we're arguing about this. It's on the BLM's authority to fine him, plain and simple. And as you said, he owes those millions to the BLM and his fellow Nevada ranchers, who happen to be taxpayers. Just because you and I aren't paying directly into a public utility with our tax money, doesn't mean we and our country aren't indirectly affected by someone's refusal to pay what they should. He's abusing public property, which is as much ours as it is his.
[QUOTE=Robman8908;44567773]Map of all [b]federally[/b] owned land in the United States. ... Yup, looks like all of it.[/QUOTE] Haven't you been arguing against the government over this issue? Then you go and post a map showing the government does own the land to refute an argument saying the government owns it? And yes, the government owns all the land, similar to how the money in your wallet is the government's, they let you use it, etc.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44566342]According to the BLM, the grazing fee is $1.35 per cow(and her calf) per MONTH. Assuming he has no calfs, and he pays $1.35/month on each of his roughly 1,000 cows, he would owe the BLM roughly $324,000. If his "bill" is over $1,000,000 as the BLM claims, that means the AUM rate they are charging him is at least $4.17, much higher than what they are charging other ranchers. $16,200 per year V.S. $50,040 per year. So no, they aren't charging him the same as all of the other ranchers.[/QUOTE] [quote]Section 1. Determination of Fees. The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior are directed to exercise their authority, to the extent permitted by law under the various statutes they administer, to establish fees for domestic livestock grazing on the public rangelands which annually equals the $1.23 base established by the 1966 Western Livestock Grazing Survey multiplied by the result of the Forage Value Index (computed annually from data supplied by the Statistical Reporting Service) added to the Combined Index (Beef Cattle Price Index minus the Prices Paid Index) and divided by 100; provided, that the annual increase or decrease in such fee for any given year shall be limited to not more than plus or minus 25 percent of the previous year's fee, and provided further, that the fee shall not be less than $1.35 per animal unit month.[/quote] [url]http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title43/html/USCODE-2010-title43-chap37.htm[/url] 1.35 is legally the absolute base price. The actual price varies.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44567567]Yeah, the 2nd amendment was written so that cattle barons can evade taxes by rallying nutjob militiamen to intimidate the government.[/QUOTE] My point exactly, it was to create militias, at least you get it. The tax thing is a bit of a drag though. I didn't actually know about that, only that cattle were being taken. [I]My bad![/I] [QUOTE=SataniX;44566778]Gonna need a source on that one.[/QUOTE] An American friend of mine told me there is an old law if you look after and cultivate unowned land for long enough it effectively becomes yours and Bundy's family has been doing it for generations, since the 1880s supposedly.
[QUOTE=Midas22;44569116]... An American friend of mine told me there is an old law if you look after and cultivate unowned land for long enough it effectively becomes yours and Bundy's family has been doing it for generations, since the 1880s supposedly.[/QUOTE] Except the land wasn't unowned.
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;44569164]Except the land wasn't unowned.[/QUOTE] My bad, I was meant to say "Unused" [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession[/url]
[QUOTE=Aman;44567558]It's just a bloated bureaucracy trying to sustain itself by fleecing citizens. It has to feed more because it grows larger. It's like an organism.[/QUOTE] I'd love to see you keep up this opinion if the government suddenly disappeared or dissolved. What the fuck would you do then? National infrastructure would collapse instantly, the world as we know it would cease to exist as the world's greatest superpower suddenly lost its only form of governance.
[QUOTE=Midas22;44566667]I understand now that this is the exact reason why the Second Amendment was written. He may not have legal documentation but due to old laws the land is legally his.[/QUOTE] the british really need to stop trying to comment on the second amendment what old laws? really
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;44568115]Haven't you been arguing against the government over this issue? Then you go and post a map showing the government does own the land to refute an argument saying the government owns it? And yes, the government owns all the land, similar to how the money in your wallet is the government's, they let you use it, etc.[/QUOTE] Is he supposed to lie to support his position? Is that what you do?
The second amendment was written to enable another rebellion against the government. If you can't see that then you've never studied the constitution or founding fathers and their motivations.
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;44569353]I'd love to see you keep up this opinion if the government suddenly disappeared or dissolved. What the fuck would you do then? National infrastructure would collapse instantly, the world as we know it would cease to exist as the world's greatest superpower suddenly lost its only form of governance.[/QUOTE] I'm no anarchist, but this is BS. The country did fine before the founding of the federal government. It only really happened in order to unify all the states on the world's stage anyway. An average US citizen in the mid 1800's might live their entire life without ever coming into contact with the federal government.
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;44569353]I'd love to see you keep up this opinion if the government suddenly disappeared or dissolved. What the fuck would you do then? National infrastructure would collapse instantly, the world as we know it would cease to exist as the world's greatest superpower suddenly lost its only form of governance.[/QUOTE] To a degree, he is right. It doesn't exist to abuse citizens, that assumes some form of centralizes thinking, but it does grow like an organism. Branches fight to continue to exist after their original purpose becomes defunct. The ATF, for example, was originally created for rather different purposes. [url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_the_United_States[/url] That is a fun list of agencies in the federal government with police powers. It isn't even a remotely complete list. Now tell me it isn't at least somewhat saddled with bloat like some kind of organism.
[QUOTE=GunFox;44577588]To a degree, he is right. It doesn't exist to abuse citizens, that assumes some form of centralizes thinking, but it does grow like an organism. Branches fight to continue to exist after their original purpose becomes defunct. The ATF, for example, was originally created for rather different purposes. [url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_the_United_States[/url] That is a fun list of agencies in the federal government with police powers. It isn't even a remotely complete list. Now tell me it isn't at least somewhat saddled with bloat like some kind of organism.[/QUOTE] Reminds me of how Washington DC has like a dozen functional police departments: - Metropolitan Police Department - Protective Services Police Department - Metro Transit Police Department - United States Capitol Police - United States Secret Service Police - United States Park Police - Federal Bureau of Investigation Police These are just the ones I remember seeing directly when I went to Washington DC, there's many more. Ontop of that there's also the things like prison officers, court officers, marshals, etc, at least another dozen agencies.
[QUOTE=Midas22;44569184]My bad, I was meant to say "Unused" [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession[/url][/QUOTE] Adverse possesions only really work with non government entities, and even then only if the non gov't entity cant prove they use the land also. And even then any usage that can be seen as diminishing land quality cant fly for it. My family has had 2 different people try and claim that shit on our land. I assume nevada or federal court wouldn't be that different.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.