Why Bundy’s legal position vis a vis the federal government probably doesn’t matter

Charles C.W. Cooke is almost certainly correct that Bundy doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on when it comes to his fight with the feds.  While its disgraceful that the feds own most of Nevada, the fact is that they do, and they get to right the ownership rules for that land.  Nevertheless, Cooke acknowledges why Bundy’s plight makes him a sympathetic figure and these posters (h/t Caped Crusader) pithily sum up what really has people outraged:

America

compare Bundy and Sharpton

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    The idea that an individual needs a legal leg to stand on is the problem with these lawyers, their lawyer thinking, and their lawfare ways. The funny thing is, the anti Leftist lawyers can’t do anything about it, because… well because the Law that’s what.

  2. says

    “But they do not serve as an executioner for our ailing rule of law. If Cliven Bundy’s behavior is legitimized by the gravity of his circumstances, how many others may follow suit, singing his name as they go?”
     
    The author is a pretty pathetic excuse for what Americans are today.
     
    If you don’t want a war, make the Left stop slaughtering humans, Mr. Lawyer and so called patriot.
     
    If you can’t stop it, then there is something that will win it.
     
    A bunch of hypocrites, however, can’t bring success.
     
    The Rule of Law has already been Executed, something Charles needs to read the memo for. The powerless fools at NRO (didn’t they fire Steyn?) think they can stop a war with Words, Lawfare, and Obedience to Authority.
     
    Good luck with that.
     
    “While its disgraceful that the feds own most of Nevada, the fact is that they do, and they get to right the ownership rules for that land. “
     
    You think Reid gets to write the laws for Nevada because Reid is in Congress or because Reid represents Nevada…. which is it?
     
    The “feds”, Hussein, and Reid are not the same. And if you think THEY ARE THE SAME, then there’s a slight problem there.
     
     

  3. says

    Another thing people try to cover up is how the BLM already has one kill under their belts, in the name of Reid. Yeeland has more, of course, but Yeeland’s in California. Everyone in California has a certain way of thought because they exist in this hive mind, feeding off the same information. I’m sure if they talked about Bundy’s ranch, it would be in those smooth tones of self righteousness. Which is what produces Oakland, yeelands, and various other filth.
     
     

  4. Mike Devx says

    It’s true that Bundy, and all the other cattle- and farm-owever who have given up, had only leasing/grazing agreements with the national govt on the govt land.
     
    But a legal agreement is a legal agreement, and the devil is always in THOSE details.    It really is no different than your house mortgage agreement with the bank, or your apartment rental contract, etc.  What are the details?  And when the land-grazing agreement between the gattlemen and the govt expires, I assume the cattle grazers are then completely at the mercy of the national govt, which is a TERRIBLE state to be in.
     
    Finally, we come to the question of what is the PROPER behavior of the government vs the legally allowable behavior of the government.  The government should honor precedence, and make changes slowly, respecting the livelihood of these ranchers.
     
    As we know, though, Obama has NO respect for the livelihood of His Royal Majesty The King’s peon subjects.
     
    Finally, if there is a dispute such as this, do you send in SWWAT teams and snipers?  Do you send in tanks?  Do you kill the cattle?  Has the issue completed its journey through the courts?  Why is the national govt in such a fantastic RUSH?  (Cough, cough, Rory and Harry Reid, Chinese Solar Farm “agreement”, cough, cough.  Never mind the desperate, world-shaking need to protect a tiny lizard even though, cough, cough, the gpvt has been killing thousands of them in the same area because they have overbred and are overrunning the land, cough, cough)
     
    SWAT Teams, snipers, tanks, military tactics… 
     
    Remember Ruby Ridge.
     
    And remember Waco.  Because of allegations of child abuse and molestation, we sent in the SWAT teams, the snipers, the tanks, the military tactics… and we burned them all alive, including the children.  In retrospect, does that really seem the appropriate response to child abuse allegations?  SWAT teams, snipers, tanks, etc, and burning the children alive TOO?
     

  5. JohnC says

    You’re right.
    They don’t have much to hold onto as far as the law stands.
    But that’s mainly because Harry Reid has used his power and influence to make certain that what’s happening to them is nice and legal. He’s been busy building a sweet little empire for himself and his family.

  6. Katja says

    Of course what Bundy is doing is illegal.  We are getting to a point where it doesn’t matter how careful we are, we’re all felons, and all the government has to do is pick the crime they want to prosecute us on. 
    The thing about all the federal land out west is ridiculous as well.  From what I understand, most became federal lands because those states were so sparsely populated that the state governments had a hard time managing them, but now that the Fed government is no longer needed in that capacity, they aren’t about to relinquish control, and actually keep claiming more.  For example, there’s a case up in northern Idaho where somebody bought a property and built a luxury house out there.  The property was sold about 15 years ago, and the purchase price was well over $1 million.  I think the property is worth close to $3 million now, but the feds have decided that some sort of protected waterway crosses it, so they want to confiscate it now “for the environment”.  Of course, the government is also claiming that there was some sort of “illegal structure” built on the property (garage or something), so this alone should make it defensible for the government to take it.  It’s ridiculous.  In this case, the people (evil 1%’ers) have enough money to litigate, at least to a point, but most people in the same sort of situation would just give up.  I’m not sure that this isn’t part of the plan to get people to move into more densely populated areas, get them on welfare, etc.  The rural life in the US is on the decline anyhow, but for those of us who are a bit more familiar with these places, it certainly does seem that this government, in particular, wants to make sure that the rural way of life (along with its values) is dead and gone.  

  7. JKB says

    No the legal position doesn’t matter.   The government gins up “violations” to justify their actions.  True, they are actual “violations” but we live in a country now, where laws are applied according to political alignment.  It would be different if the broken laws were malum in se.  But malum prohibitum?  People are just tired of all that.  
     
    Of course, the BLM will be back.  In the dark of night and they won’t be looking to have Bundy’s participating in the incident investigation.  The Feds have one problem though, the state of Nevada isn’t participating.  That means any killings will be investigated by state authorities who don’t have a need to cover up what really happened.   But I wouldn’t expect the SWAT raid until after the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November.  
     
    And no doubt, there are those in the Obama administration who may see that sometimes it just takes a street vendor setting himself on fire to instigate change.  What about a “range war” over a need for a high ranking Democrat to provide government land to his son’s dubious business venture?  

  8. says

    Charles Cook actually doesn’t agree with any of you, although he is linked as if he is.
     
    Powerline was who Cook was quoting. Cook himself wants to use law to recover the excesses of this Regime and doesn’t like firecracker cowboys messing it up with successful insurgency resistance.

  9. says

    “Sympathy” is generally used for other people suffering problems you don’t have to worry about.
     
    Try this thought experiment.
     
    “My child was kidnapped, I am sympathetic for my child”
     
    Islamos cut off my arm, I am sympathetic to my arm’s pain.
     
    The Regime tried to eliminate Bundy’s ranch and the freedom fighters, I am sympathetic to them.
     
    Sympathy, huh, what is it good for? When people think It is Not Their Problem.

  10. Mike Devx says

    I’m commenting on an older thread, but this IS where this comment belongs…   I think we’ve all missed the most important aspect of this story.
     
    The BLM (Bureau of Land Management, an arm of the national govt’s executive branch) went after the Bundys with a paramilitary organization.  This was a HUGE SWAT team effort.
     
    Remember how all of these agencies of the national govt suddenly were being armed with paramilitary weaponry?  For the longest time, it was “just” local police forces in large city/urban areas that had their own paramilitary SWAT teams.  Now more and more police departments do.  And many sub-organizations within the national government, such as the BLM, now have their own SWAT teams.
     
    In the last few years, they have been buying up a simply STUPENDOUS amount of ammunition as well.  We thought perhaps that the goal was to deny private citizens the opportunity to buy ammunition – to starve the market, so to speak.  But I think the goals were much simpler than that.
     
    These SWAT teams, these paramilitary outfits, need to be fully autonomous.  To be autonomous – independent – they must have their own complete military weaponry cache.  And that includes their own ammunition.
     
    I think what we saw with the Bundys in Nevada was just a test case of the Eexecutive Branch’s new paramilitary capabilities being exercised.  They wanted to see how we all would react.  And they wanted to “first blood” their BLM paramilitary guys.   The BLM was the first, or one of the first.
     
    There will be MANY more of these incidents.  Our National Government’s Executive Branch wants to exercise paramilitary control over we, the citizenry.  It is coming, and it will keep coming at an ever-greater pace.
     
    In addition to merely seeing how we’ll react, and to providing that first cut at experience for the paramilitary troops, repeatedly doing this will jade us into seeing these actions as normal, as simiply more of the same.  You could say we are being groomed to accept their new Executive Branch paramilitary control.  We are being groomed the same way a child molester grooms his next victim.
     

Leave a Reply