l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 The Bundy Family and Armed Resistance to ‘Government Land Grabs’: Know the
Facts
by Brandon Darby and Logan Churchwell3 Jan 20166,504
Ammon Bundy, son of infamous Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, is leading an
armed effort to occupy a headquarters building located in a federal wildlife
preserve near Burns, Oregon, as a reaction to a local criminal case between
ranchers and public land officials beginning in 2001.
What started as a community protest–over the extended sentencing of father
and son ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond for two cases of arson on public
lands–has morphed into another Bundy showdown where sovereign citizen
rhetoric, revisionist history, and self-identified militia converge. Due to
the extensive nature of this decades-long story, Breitbart News will be
filing multiple stories from eastern Oregon in the days ahead.
While it may appear to be a severe overreaction to a criminal justice matter
, such episodes are deeply embedded in certain pockets of western states
where local property owners and government officials regularly clash over
land usage rights and restrictions. Like some progressive activists
capitalizing on officer-involved urban shootings, the Bundy family is now
leveraging its experience in fomenting illogical protests across state lines.
Standing up to the federal government and protecting private property rights
both can be noble pursuit that inspires the hearts of conservatives, but
was the Bundy standoff really about private property rights? The answer is
largely no. Let’s look at what happened previously with the Bundy family in
hopes of understanding the current standoff.
Breitbart Texas took a close look at the fireworks surrounding the April
2014 Bundy standoff in southern Nevada. We were on scene and we were
apparently one of the few outlets that actually reported on the vast paper
trail of failed bureaucratic haggling, court briefs, and livestock
impoundment orders that led to the dramatic showdown.
Many on the Right–including many right-of-center news outlets–took the
Bundy narrative as truth. They believed the feds erroneously took his cattle
off of his land and he and his supporters were fighting for his personal
property. Court briefs and the sworn testimony by the Bundy family made it
clear that there were actually four tracts of land involved, and the three
that were at the core of the crisis belonged to the federal government–not
the Bundy family.
For purposes of simplification, let’s call the property owned by the Bundy
family as Tract A. The property the Bundys once had the permission to use is
Tract B (until they refused to pay required grazing fees in 1994). Tracts C
and D were protected areas near Lake Mead that were never open to permitted
grazing. After the Bundys refused to honor federal grazing requirements,
their livestock was considered to be trespassing on Tract B, while hundreds
of head of cattle—many unbranded—wandered into Tracts C and D.
Now let’s take a close look at that fight and what beliefs were at the core.
1. Conflating Nevada’s “fence-out” law with open range ranching
traditions, the Bundys argued that their livestock could graze anywhere in
Nevada unless authorities actively fenced them out of certain properties.
2. Bundy claimed that, since the federal government has no right to exist
and is illegitimate, any federal lands in Nevada actually belong to the “
sovereign” State of Nevada.
3. Bundy claimed that, since Nevada was the rightful owner of federal lands
in Nevada and the state wouldn’t claim to be the owner of those lands, he
was welcome to use adjacent tracts as natural extensions of his private
property.
4. Bundy claimed Tract C and D as his own by means of the above logic. That
’s what the fight was primarily focused on. Tract C was a recreational area
for Lake Mead. Tract D had always been a reserve that Bundy had never had
the “right” to use.
Let’s revisit the original Breitbart Texas investigative report from the
first Bundy standoff. We wrote:
BUNKERVILLE, NEVADA—The Bundy Ranch roundup has understandably stirred thin
-stretched emotions as the federal government seizes cattle belonging to the
Bundy family. The family settled in the late 1800’s and has ranched in the
area since. The federal government allowed Nevada ranchers to graze their
cattle on federal tracts of land adjacent to their private properties for
generations. The federal government later created the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) to administer and “protect” the vast swaths of federal
land—including the land the Bundy family’s livelihood was—and still is—
dependent upon. The BLM began restricting ranchers’ usage of federal lands
to protect various species, and the BLM decided to restrict the Bundy family
’s usage of the federal land they historically grazed. The federal
government told the Bundy family that a tortoise existed on the land and
therefore the land’s usage for cattle would have to decrease—thus creating
a scenario where the Bundy family could make fewer resources. A 20-year
legal battle ensued.
There exist a number of elements to the story that inject shades of grey
into the dominant media narrative. Perhaps hundreds of Bundy supporters have
already shown up to the ranch area to “protect” the family and their land
—which is federal land—but federal land such usage was promised to the
family in the government’s efforts to get people to settle the West after
Mexico ceded the land to the U.S. Court documents—discussed later in this
article—reveal that the Bundy family decided at some point that the federal
government was illegitimate and that they no longer had to give heed to the
federal courts. The Bundy family patriarch has openly stated his
willingness to use force against federal agents if they take his cattle off
of the federal lands; the federal agents stand ready to use force against
the family or their supporters if they interfere with the cattle removal.
Both sides are armed, both sides are frustrated, and the rhetoric and
hyperbole surrounding the entire matter has left many onlookers from around
the world confused as to what is actually happening.
In the immediate aftermath of the infamous cattle roundup, Cliven Bundy
granted a number of high profile media interviews continuing to deny—to the
point of absolutely ignoring family history—what the federal courts have
twice told him.
“I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada,” Bundy recently told a
Dana Loesch. “…I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But, I don’t
recognize the United States Government as even existing.”
Loesch: “So essentially you have a deal already with Nevada and the Bureau
of Land Management is essentially trying to revoke or renege that deal?”
Cliven Bundy: “Yeah, it gets back to the ownership of this. Who owns this
land? Does the sovereign State of Nevada own this land within their borders?
Or does the United States own this land with their borders? If United
States owns this land then I guess I’m wrong. But what if this is a
sovereign State of Nevada and Clark County, Nevada owns this land? The
People of Clark County, Nevada owns this land.”
The answers to Mr. Bundy’s questions have been given—twice.
Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of this episode–aside from the headline
-grabbing details and viral video content—is that it could have served as a
strong case study for 21st Century review of the necessity for mass federal
land ownership being utilized for private purposes. Between federal budget
constraints, political “land grabs” and increasing enforcement costs,
perhaps it is time to discuss how the U.S. can offload land tracts to
parties in demand through the free market. However, those discussions are
difficult to initiate when one does not recognize the sovereignty of their
presumed adversary.
Given the fact that this cattle impound took 20 years, two federal lawsuits
with appeals and a number of administrative threats before actually
occurring—the federal government’s record of enforcement deserves a closer
look as well.
The Bundy family can in fact claim to have enjoyed generations of grazing
rights on federal land—with an arrangement originating in the 1870s.
Adjacent to their personal property, the family was allowed to utilize what
was known as the Bunkerville Allotment.
The Bundy family’s battle with the federal government–now playing out in
international news coverage—began in 1993 with the listing of a native
tortoise incorporated under the Endangered Species Act. As a result, the U.S
. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) informed grazing
permit holders like Bundy that cattle counts would need to be reduced to
150 head. That same year, the Bundy permit was eligible for renewal but was
not executed. The permit was later revoked in 1994 by the BLM for nonpayment
on the renewal, according to federal court records.
Claiming that the Bundy family continued to graze livestock on their old
Bunkerville Allotment without permit, the BLM sought an injunction in
federal court to correct the “trespass” in 1998. The court ordered the
Bundy family remove all non-permitted livestock by November 30, 1998 or face
fines of $200 per head, per day. The family appealed to the 9th Circuit
Court—only to be denied in May 1999.
Throughout the period of 2000 to 2011–spanning both Bush and Obama
Administrations–the BLM performed a series of investigations with a variety
of reconnaissance tactics to track the alleged trespass of cattle owned by
the Bundy family. According to court records, federal agents noted
increasing herd sizes on the land formerly allotted and adjacent tracts
which were never permitted to private parties. Investigators noted that “
more than half” of the cattle did not bear any brand but were confirmed to
be the property of Bundy “in correspondence,” according to filings.
Federal bureaucrats took great interest in the increased grazing on a tract
known as the “New Trespass Lands” adjacent to the old lease once held.
Further, Bundy brands were spotted in the neighboring Lake Mead recreational
area.
In June 2011, BLM sent a fresh cease and desist order with a renewed threat
to impound stray cattle in July 2011. Later in November, the National Park
Service (NPS) sent a separate letter regarding alleged trespass on the two
new tracts with a 45 day impound threat. In January 2012, the Bundy family
told NPS they would work to round up stray cattle ahead of the deadline.
According to court records, the BLM claimed to have surveyed 600 head of
cattle on the New Trespass Lands (typically described as a nature preserve
by the DOJ) in February 2012. A month later, the figure was officially
revised upward to 790, accounting for “recently born” calves.
In April 2012, court records indicate that a final administrative effort was
made on the part of the BLM to resolve the alleged trespass on the tracts—
including the federal lands traditionally used by the Bundy family and
additional federal lands the Bundy family began using without permission on
or around 2000. According to testimony, federal agents attempted to broker a
deal involving the Clark County Sherriff that would allow cattle to be
wrangled and transported to a sales market of the Bundy family’s choosing
and allow the family to keep all proceeds. Court filings referenced Cliven
Bundy’s assertion that any such action to round up cattle could lead to a
“range war.”
Claiming to have exhausted all options, the U.S. Government filed a new
civil lawsuit against the family for specific alleged trespass on the New
Trespass Lands and the Lake Mead recreational area in May 2012. Court
records reference Bundy’s confirmation in deposition that the cattle–
branded or not–were indeed his on the tracts. Further, the DOJ detailed the
family’s ranching improvements to the off-limits New Trespass Lands to
include corrals, water troughs, hay and grazing supplements—such
improvements were explicitly prohibited for any party, according to court
records. The government repeatedly reminded the court that no grazing
permits in the disputed area were ever offered. When asked in deposition
what reaction the Bundy family would have should an impoundment occur,
Cliven said he’d do “whatever it takes” to include physical force to stop
such action.
The U.S. Government claimed that cattle on or near the two off-limits tracts
posed “a significant risk to public safety.” Federal agencies claimed to
have been in receipt of reports “of vehicle collisions and near collisions
” due to the cattle. Bundy directly denied the allegation.
Throughout litigation, the Bundy family defended its actions using similar
defense theories from prior litigation—despite the federal court’s
rejection of them. The family argued that the United States did not in fact
maintain jurisdiction or ownership of the federal lands in question, citing
a specific Nevada code NRS 321.596 Legislative Findings. Bundy also
challenged the inclusion of the tortoise as an endangered species.
In July 2013, the federal court granted the DOJ’s motion for summary
judgment in favor of the U.S. Government. The court reiterated its position
that “the public lands of Nevada are the property of the United States
because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848,
when Mexico ceded the land to the United States.”
The Nevada federal district court offered a rather blunt summary of its
ruling, “In sum, this most recent effort to oppose the United States’
legal process, Bundy has produced no valid law or specific facts raising a
genuine issue of fact regarding federal ownership or management of the
public lands of Nevada, or that his cattle have not trespassed on the New
Trespass Lands.”
In February 2014, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals again rejected Bundy
’s claims.
No Easy Solutions
Hundreds of the Bundy family neighbors have been pushed out of ranching, a
profession and culture the families shared with generations of their
ancestors, by the federal government slowly restricting more and more of the
usage of federal lands. The Bundy family has held on—but holding on meant
ignoring the rule of law, as much as they would argue that the federal
government has ignored the rule of law. After years of federal overreach and
corruption—especially from federal agencies restricting public lands or
effectively taking the value out of privately-held lands to protect
tortoises, spotted owls, and ponds a bird might someday land in—many
Americans are boiling and looking for an instance to stand against. The
Bundy ranch has filled that role for many. Stated concerns over this being a
new Waco or Ruby Ridge have come from the family. The federal government
clearly views the armed Bundy supporters with concern—as evidenced by
reports of government snipers being nearby and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) issuing a no-fly zone for three miles surrounding the
Bundy ranch. | T*********I
发帖数: 10729 | | f**********n
发帖数: 29853 | 3 没全部跟随这个事情。大概看下来，这些抗议者给人一种很悲壮，很个人英雄主义的感
觉。
和那些黑人生命重要的活动比，这几位占着一个鸟不拉屎，冷得要死的地方，不对普通
人构成任何骚扰，不打砸枪烧，不为私利，目的只是要媒体注意，被判刑的话，罪名可
是严重的不得了。
颇有点感动，今天我接完小孩，准备带着弹弓去入伙。请问东方不败克罗拉可以开到那
个地方吗？ |
|
