JimC wrote:To me, this is about the rule of law. If, as Piscator and others have said, US courts have ruled that the public land the cattle are being grazed on is not available for grazing unless a fee is payed, and someone is evading this fee, then they are in the wrong, and the authorities have every right to take action.
If they don't like it, they should take their case to a higher court and argue it, as every other citizen has to do if there is a dispute. If the legal process is wrong in the opinion of many, then it becomes a matter for peaceful protest and/or political lobbying.
Not a libertarian dummy spit and a threat of violence because the umpire did not rule in their favour.
BLM took the land out of the grazing program in 1998 to protect desert tortoises, and to let the block recover to its natural state. This was inconvenient to Bundy, so based on an unrecorded agreement he dates at 1870 between his Mormon ancestors and the other Mormon settlers, he figures he has preemptive right against the initial conversion of his favorite grazing leases into the Public Trust.
IOW, Bundy says it's not Public Land because of a preexisting claim, which he decided to exercise when they cut off his grazing lease.
Trouble is, Nevada became a state in 1864, and in its Enabling Act relinquished all claims on Federal Lands within its boundaries. The land in question was patently owned by the citizens of the US and administered by Congress (by virtue of the Property Clause of the US Constitution) before Bundy's Sainted ancestors ever parked the wagon and 'claimed' it for their business.