Police investigating Cliven Bundy-related threats to Harry Reid

Bureau of Land Management vehicles are seen Friday, April 11, near a corral with Bundy Ranch cattle outside Bunkerville, Nevada. (Reuters)

By MANU RAJU
Politico

Federal law enforcement officials are investigating threats made against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the aftermath of his sharp-edged attacks against Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, sources said Monday.

Reid has not minced words about Bundy’s battle with the Bureau of Land Management, referring to Bundy’s supporters as “domestic terrorists” and the rancher himself as a “hateful racist.” As he’s stepped up his criticism, Reid has been the subject of threats himself, prompting an increase in his own security detail in recent days, people familiar with the matter said Monday.

Shennell Antrobus, a spokesman for the U.S. Capitol Police, declined to comment on the number of security personnel assigned to Reid or the nature of the threats against the Democratic leader. But he confirmed that the police are investigating “threatening statements” made against the majority leader.

“We are currently looking into threatening statements made against Sen. Reid as part of an ongoing investigation,” Antrobus said.

Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson declined to comment.

It’s not unusual for a politician in such a position of power to be the subject of threats; federal officials routinely investigate threats made against leaders of all stripes.

But the Reid inquiry comes as other Democrats are raising security concerns over the Bundy episode.

Rep. Steven Horsford — a freshman Nevada Democrat whose district spans the region outside of Las Vegas where Bundy is battling the BLM — expressed serious concerns Sunday that out-of-state “armed militia groups” were exerting undue influence and scaring residents in Bunkerville, Nev., and the surrounding areas, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

In a Sunday letter to Clark County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie, Horsford alleged that armed groups have created checkpoints requiring individuals “to prove they live in the area before being allowed to pass” and have established “a persistent presence” around highways, local schools and churches.

“We must respect individual constitutional liberties, but the residents of and visitors to Clark County should not be expected to live under the persistent watch of an armed militia,” Horsford said in the letter.

The increasingly tense battle stems from a conflict over grazing rights on public lands. Bundy owes $1.1 million in grazing fees after he stopped paying the Bureau of Land Management in retaliation against the government’s move to restrict grazing in an effort to protect the endangered desert tortoise. The agency, which is headed by a 35-year-old former Reid aide, Neil Kornze, who won Senate confirmation earlier this month, manages more than 260 million acres of public lands, mostly in the West.

With armed supporters protecting his herd, Bundy has battled with BLM agents seeking to seize some 500 cattle following charges by the government that his family has long been illegally grazing his cattle there. The fight has made Bundy a national celebrity with conservatives for his battles with what critics call an overreaching federal government and efforts to limit dissent in harsh ways, such as using tasers on protesters in Nevada.

But Republicans quickly abandoned Bundy last week after his remarks disparaging African Americans and questioning whether they’d be better off under slavery appeared in the New York Times.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he said. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Bundy later responded: “If they think I’m racist, they are totally wrong.”

At scene of Nevada ranch standoff, 'citizen soldiers' are on guard

The conflict between cattleman Cliven Bundy and the BLM has attracted scores of self-styled militiamen who tote semiautomatic guns and share his antigovernment views.

Cattleman Cliven Bundy leaves the lectern after a news conference near his ranch in Bunkerville, Nev. Bundy and the federal Bureau of Land Management have been locked in a dispute for years over grazing rights on public lands. (David Becker / Getty Images /April 24, 2014)

By John M. Glionna and Richard Simon
Los Angeles Times

BUNKERVILLE, Nev. — The first thing you see on the drive to Cliven Bundy's ranch are the American flags — tied to roadside guardrails, flapping in a hard desert wind.

At a bend in state Route 170 sits the so-called Patriot Checkpoint, evidence of the tense power play raging between the rebellious 67-year-old cattleman and the federal government.

Then there are the guns. Scores of grim citizen militiamen in combat fatigues — semiautomatic weapons slung over their shoulders, ammunition magazines at their belts — patrol from a base they call Camp Tripwire.

"State sovereignty is what we're fighting for," reads a sign strung to a fence. And another: "The West has now been won!"

Bundy's private war, a decades-long court battle with the Bureau of Land Management over his cattle grazing on public land, recently took a decidedly populist turn: When armed federal agents moved to oversee the roundup of hundreds of Bundy's cattle across half a million acres managed by the BLM, some Americans sat up wide-eyed before their televisions and computer screens.

The government says that Bundy owes $1 million in fees for letting his cattle graze in the Gold Butte area. Still, the get-tough tactic became a clarion call for those who see the federal government as arrogant and bloated. Suddenly, truck drivers, pizza deliverymen and ex-cops from as far away as New Hampshire and Georgia converged upon this unincorporated ranching town.

The self-described "citizen soldiers" arrived venting a smoldering anger and wielding AR-15 and AK-47 rifles. Days later, the government called off the roundup and released 350 of Bundy's cattle back onto public land.

Two weeks later, some Bundy supporters remain bivouacked here, celebrating what they call the Battle of Bunkerville. They're gritty, unshaven men, some with their wives, who refer to themselves as "we the people," voicing gripes about Obamacare and lax federal immigration policy.

Bundy has his critics, but to supporters, his case is a symbol of everything wrong with America. Never mind that other ranchers pay the fees Bundy says he can avoid because his ancestors settled the area before the federal government stepped in.

The face-off is reminiscent of civil disobedience popularized during the 1970s Sagebrush Rebellion, a movement that sought greater local control in 12 Western states where the federal government administers 60% of the land. In Nevada, the BLM manages 87% of the land.

At Camp Tripwire, the militia members talk of deadly antigovernment clashes at Idaho's Ruby Ridge and at Waco, Texas. "We showed up so there's no slaughter like Ruby Ridge," said a man who called himself Mark, a 60-year-old from New Mexico dressed in fatigues, with a handgun strapped to his leg.

"A blind chimp can see this is a bad situation. But we're not wackos. We're here as defenders, trying to do what's right in our hearts," he said.

Two weeks ago, he arrived at a scene that he said brought tears to his eyes: "Americans, refusing to cow to the federal government, blindly, like cattle. They were taking a stand."

In Washington, the standoff has divided lawmakers along party lines.

Harry Reid, Nevada's senior senator and the Senate majority leader, branded Bundy's militia "domestic terrorists," while the state's other senator, Republican Dean Heller, called them "patriots."

Other Republicans say Bundy highlights what they regard as federal overreach, such as presidents designating public land for national monuments without consulting local officials.

"Remember, the federal government works for the people. It doesn't feel like that out West," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "It's not just about Mr. Bundy. A lot of people can relate to what is happening, even though they probably disagree with somebody who wants to run cattle on public land without a permit."

He says many Western ranchers think Washington doesn't understand or care about them: "It isn't long before shots will be fired."

Bob Abbey, a former BLM director, said public angst goes beyond Bundy. "I do think there is a segment of our population in the United States that feels disenfranchised," he said.

But, he added, "Mr. Bundy is not a victim by any means."

Bundy's public image fell this week after his pointed comments about African Americans and social welfare, suggesting that "the Negro" was made dependent by government programs. He told the New York Times that "I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn't get no more freedom. They got less freedom."

The denunciations were immediate. Heller "completely disagrees with Bundy's appalling and racist statements and condemns them in the most strenuous way," his office said. Reid calls Bundy a hateful racist.

Bundy's wife, Carol, on Thursday defended her husband. "What he was saying is that there are lots of different forms of slavery. Welfare is one kind. It's just another way to suppress people."

The citizen cowboys protecting Bundy's ranch remain undeterred. "His statements were not a criticism of blacks. They criticized the federal government," said Brandon Rapolla, a concrete mixer from Oregon who spent eight days at the ranch. "I've met the Bundys, and that's not who they are."

In Nevada, the prolonged standoff has alienated many, including the Nevada Cattlemen's Assn., which says the matter is between Bundy and the courts. That's the advice of Patrick Shea, a former BLM director. The government, he said, should be patient, put a lien on Bundy's cattle and not "create these made-for-television dramas."

Ray Schmalz, a Colorado visitor, says Bundy is simply selfish. The roundup threatened to close a public area where Schmalz rides his all-terrain vehicle. "If he owes grazing fees, he needs to pay them. He's raping the system. And that militia with him are just rebels, showing off with their guns," he said.

Historians say Bundy's followers will eventually find a new rallying cause.

"The tea party and everyone else is tapping into the anger of people [who] feel like outsiders to a federal government they do not control," said Michael Green, a historian at the College of Southern Nevada. "After Cliven Bundy, someone else will come along. With the Internet and 24/7 news channels, there will always be something new to rally people."

The Camp Tripwire sentry covered his eyes from a wind-whipped blast of sand. A rotund man from Arizona in full military field regalia, he carried several weapons and a walkie-talkie. "Post to base," he said. "There's a visitor who wants to enter."

Given the approval, he barked: "OK. Over and out."

He turned, snapping: "Go directly to the blue tent. Do not stop to talk to anyone." Asked about his rifle propped against a chair, he softened: "The Bundys don't want us carrying them around. But I'm not supposed to tell anybody that. I'll get in trouble."

Camp commander Jerry DeLemus, who drove 41 hours from New Hampshire with a yellow "Don't Tread on Me" flag, had his hands full — directing armed sentries, storing supplies, leading a morning prayer session. At 59, he's an ex-Marine, self-employed contractor, born-again Christian, Harley-Davidson motorcyclist and National Rifle Assn. member.

"All of us out here, we're Americans," he said, a .45-caliber handgun at his side. "Just like you."

He explained the post's name — Camp Tripwire. "If anyone comes here to do anything bad, they're going to trip on us," he said. "It doesn't mean we're going to stop them, but we'll slow them down."

Who knows how long he'll stay. "My wife asks the same question," he said. "People have lost jobs. But I still can't pry 'em out of here."

Nearby, at the Bundy ranch, the mood was less accommodating. "Hey, where you going?" men in fatigues shouted when a visitor tried to enter the Bundy house. "Nobody just walks in here."

Inside, Carol Bundy looked on sheepishly, later sending an apologetic text message: "We have just had an overwhelming amount of media here and the militia is getting protective."

Later, Cliven Bundy sat with supporters under a mesquite tree at the Patriot Checkpoint, with a box of pocket-sized Constitutions on a nearby table.

He spoke softly, like a leader at a prayer meeting. Since the roundup ended, he said he has refused to even open five certified letters from the BLM. "I've challenged the federal government's authority," he said. "That's why they want to kill Cliven Bundy."

Surrounded daily by guards, he admitted his rancher's life had become a fishbowl existence. "I'd hate to have this militia here for the rest of my life," he said. "But I sure do want them here today."

'Militia' groups fear infiltration by feds at Bundy Ranch

By Lauren Rozyla
KLAS-TV Las Vegas

BUNKERVILLE, Nev. -- Militia groups are still surrounding the Bundy ranch days after the BLM ended its roundup of cattle. There is concern among some of them that they have been infiltrated by undercover federal agents.

One man, among the self-described militia, says at least two federal agents went undercover to gather information and are preparing to make arrests. This latest information is causing increased tensions among those who say their goal is to protect rancher Cliven Bundy. Around 50 people remain at the ranch, many living in tents, and are prepared to stay for weeks, even months. The men say they took an oath to protect, but they are worried there is a rat in the ranks

"When you pledge your life and your fortune, you're prepared to give it up," said Bobby Bridgewater, an Oath Keeper.

An atmosphere of uncertainty now surrounds the Bundy ranch. The so-called security guards aren't sure, but they believe it's possible federal agents are among them, posing as militia.

"You don't know until you actually catch somebody," Bridgewater said. "It is always something that we're always thinking about."

The Bundy supporters gathered in Bunkerville to protect the Bundy family. Cliven Bundy has allowed his cattle to graze illegally for 20 years on public lands. The feds began rounding up the cattle about three weeks ago, but stopped after some armed supporters interfered. Those supporters took Bundy's cattle back from a federal holding pen. The militia continue to guard Bundy and the nearby hills 24 hours a day.

Former Bundy guard Frank Lindysthe says it is all very troubling.

"They are now calling for militia. They're not in dug in positions, they are sitting on top of ridges. They don't have night vision capability," he said.

Lindysthe left the ranch in the middle of the night after at least two men tried joining the guard. He said the men made him uncomfortable.

"The people that are up there, they have a certain look about them. These are military. My belief is federal agents," he said.

Lindysthe feels the alleged federal agents are there to gather information on militia members and eventually conduct a raid.

"They're dirty. They're dirty," he said.

But, despite that belief, most of the militia show no signs of leaving and many say they're ready to die fighting.

The BLM is declining any on camera interviews and there's been no talk of any arrests connected to the dispute.

What’s Next for the Bundys?

OPINION

By David Hathaway
LewRockwell.com

The federal response will definitely come. It will likely be in three areas; two of which don’t involve the Bundys specifically. First, a multi-faceted attack will be made on the Bundys; second, a broad-front regulatory response against other land users will be made for the purpose of retaliation against the whole group and as a deterrent; and third, new provocateur deployments will probably be made across the West into similar situations.

The attack on the Bundys will be planned to be large enough so as to not fail since precedents are being considered by the feds. To give an historical example, the precedent of voluntary militias forming in the nineties as a constitutional concept in lieu of standing armies was effectively derailed for twenty years when the whole movement was painted as obscene by multiple federal law enforcement agencies intensely targeting them, or anything that looked like them, while prosecuting a P.R. campaign in conjunction with the sycophant mass media in the wake of the provocateured Oklahoma City fiasco.

There is the possibility that doors will be smashed down in the darkness of early morning raids for all the Bundy family members, supporters, and ranch hands. There is the possibility that plants are feigning inside knowledge at this very moment and are seated with prosecutors scrolling through video and pointing out participants and ascribing statements or actions to them. Such violent raids on houses and places of business targeting these designated domestic terrorists represent one possibility. If that happens, it probably won’t be immediate. The following factors all affect the time-line for the response which I estimate to be in about three weeks, give or take a week or two.

The most likely first step for the violent option involves the impaneling of a grand jury that will be brought along slowly with presentations by government “experts” giving sensational overviews of generic un-American activities, terrorist groups, and right wing extremists. All of the activity involving the grand jury will be officially in “secret.” Power-point presentations will be made to the grand jury showing pipe bombs, smoking buildings, and nazi symbolism. It will be blatantly prejudicial to the eventual case presented for indictment but, there is no “other side” in this process to object. There is just a prosecutor, government agents, and the grand jury eating doughnuts in a little room. Period. The massaging of the jury’s mindset is done long before they are shown case-specific information. This process can go on for a week. It is not adversarial. It is a one-sided show. There is no defense. It is designed to paint a picture of a general evil class of people. It’s kind of like the process used to get police cadets ready to shoot people. There is no danger that the grand jurors will ever be identified by the Bundys or feel any guilt from having to face those they bravely accuse.

Next, with the extent of the balderdashing that needs to be done to the grand jury to obfuscate the truth in this case, the prosecutor will need another week of ominous head-nodding alongside the agent witnesses’ general summarizing of the evil network masterminded by the Bundys. That puts us at two weeks. Then, the grand jury would be asked to give a “true bill,” an indictment. The grand jury ALWAYS indicts if asked to do so. Always, always, always. Because if they don’t, they are dismissed and another one is impaneled until the indictment is handed down. The warrants on the indictment will then be issued by the federal magistrate by the following week.

And finally, the law enforcement agencies need a few days to draw up plans, print out Google Earth photos of all the target locations, bring in TDY support from other federal agencies, assemble for briefings, give out team assignments, and pick a date to execute search warrants and arrest warrants. So, all of that puts us at three weeks. The three weeks also gives a period of apparent peace and quiet. It will be hoped that this quiet period will cause any supporters to give up and go home. Agents from other agencies will be enticed, probably with notices going out right now, to volunteer for an all-expense paid week living on the Las Vegas strip at taxpayer expense enjoying wine, women, and song at a premier hotel. This is one of the possible approaches against the Bundys.

Another possibility will be considered by agency heads that are reviewing the news coverage, the iconic images of cowboys waving flags displaying historic “American” individualism, and the favorable reaction by much of the public to the visible stand taken by Bundy supporters. This possibility would probably begin to slowly go into effect along the same three-week time-line as the smash-and-grab scenario above. This one may involve the grand jury also but, as an “investigative tool.” While a grand jury is “investigating” a suspect or a “criminal organization,” unlimited secret subpoenas may be issued for anything. No other reason for the subpoena is needed other than the fact that the grand jury is investigating something. Anything and everything will be scarfed up. The feds will get financial information, phone information, and witnesses that will be compelled to testify or be incarcerated if they refuse to testify. There is no, “I stand on the fifth” when the grand jury asks you about something. You will be held in contempt merely for refusing to testify when in front of a grand jury. No day in court. No due process. No good time. No parole. No probation. You are locked up as a grand jury witness until you change your mind and decide to go along with the government.

Ex-parte orders would be obtained to obtain IRS records for all involved. Asset forfeiture orders for substitute assets could be obtained that would identify Bundy or supporter assets and forfeit those assets to the government in lieu of supposed specific losses sustained by the government from unpaid grazing fees or other claimed damages or from an estimated value of the illegal proceeds of the criminal activity (ranching). These designated substitute assets may have no identifiable connection to the asset classes designated as losses or as illegal income by the government. Money laundering charges could be filed for “conversion” of “illegally obtained” assets or income.

Archived call data or live “pen registers” may be obtained to make conspiracy connections within the “criminal organization.” Wiretaps may be initiated although this would be more time consuming and would lead to jury- sympathetic recorded conversations with fewer co-conspirator and criminal hierarchy connections than those which could be manufactured by experts analyzing the call data with link charts to be shown to a jury.

This alternate slower attack against the Bundys would be the nickel-and-dime approach that would result in service of seizure orders to banks and persons. Seizure notices would be posted on residential or business property accompanied by lis pendens filings recorded at the county courthouse against those properties. Notices would be mailed out. Administrative or judicial forfeiture action would commence against personal assets depending on value thresholds. Bank accounts would be frozen and then drained. Persons would be detained individually when they went shopping away from their homes to avoid video clips of militarized feds attacking the houses of ordinary Americans in military operations. Businesses and vehicles would be seized over time. Cars would be grabbed when driven away from home when the owners were alone in their vehicles so as to not precipitate a defensive response from supporters.

Both of these types of attacks on the Bundys would likely involve the task force concept where multiple agencies would be brought in to confer and participate in either the slow or fast take-down of the Bundys and their livelihood. The other three-letter agencies would likely be tapped to lend equipment, manpower, administrative authority, or proprietary investigative techniques to wage the good fight against the hard-working American cowboys and their loyal families.

The most likely response will involve the above techniques in a hybrid operation with the Sheriff’s Office or Nevada State authorities. Up to half of current federal agency prosecutions are done through county prosecutor offices or state attorney generals’ offices. The federal prosecutors don’t object since their resources haven’t always kept up with the expansion of federal law enforcement agencies. They are all too happy to see a federal law enforcement agency prosecute a case, or parts of a case, through state and county channels when similar laws exist on the federal and state side. Charging the core case via the county or state would be somewhat complex in this situation, however, since the base charges are primarily federal in nature regarding lands that the feds have proclaimed off-limits to various citizen and resident uses. That wouldn’t be a stopper though.

Cliven Bundy has indicated that he would surrender or submit to justice if the Sheriff was the one making the request on behalf of the county or state. It is likely that the feds will approach the Sheriff and suggest that he be part of the face of leviathan when Bundy is approached with a combination of charges. The feds will pressure the county and state authorities to come up with a few token charges that could be dovetailed with the federal charges so that a county warrant, summons, writ, or subpoena could be presented by a local officer tacitly or overtly working with the feds. Local officers are quite often deputized with federal authority for the duration of a certain case or longer. Once the Bundy case is in the state system, criminally or civilly, the state charges could then be dropped or held in abeyance while county authorities defer to federal prosecutors awaiting the outcome of the federal case.

Aside from the Bundy family, all other ranchers will likely be punished by the feds via enhanced regulatory interventions in response to the actions on display in Nevada. This is common fare as a mechanism to teach the public to not mimic others who are standing up for themselves. USFS and BLM staff will be told at the headquarters level to crack down on ranchers in general and to give no quarter when dealing with “grazing permits” and “grazing fees.” The continual downward trend for the number of cattle allowed on historical grazing lands, i.e. “federal allotments,” will be announced to ranchers during their recurring annual grazing permit meetings with the feds. The continually reduced allotments will be enforced with vigor to teach the rancher scum a lesson. My family has had to deal for generations with perpetually reduced livestock “allowances” on grazing lands in Arizona along with the more recent “endangered species” excuse to stomp on the land and water rights of ranchers who willingly maintain infrastructure that benefits both livestock and wildlife at no taxpayer expense. This happens, and will continue to happen, on both private deeded ranching land and on historical grazing “permit” lands used by ranchers for generations that were beyond the acreage amounts permitted for official deeded homesteading claims. [By the way, these grazing “permits” on specific land parcels with their documented historical homestead linkages convey and are bought and sold just like other real estate.]

The final likely type of general response by the feds will be a chaotic, unpredictable deployment of provocateurs throughout the West trying to simulate the crisis presented in this trendy new visible law enforcement category. More visible crises are needed to allow Fox News and CNN to delineate between the good guys (the police state) and the bad guys (ranchers). Attempts will be made to catch evil ranchers operating their ranches while scheming, in recorded conversations, to keep operating their ranches despite growing opposition by the feds to the presence of ranchers. That won’t work since cowboys are wary and hard to trap, so provocateurs will try to find a bozo in a cowboy hat and suggest to him, after he consumes a 12-pack purchased by the provocateur, that the drunk pretend cowboy and his new found friend should have some fun and smash some turtles out in the desert. The feds would then save us from that fate just on the cusp of it occurring with federal planning, financing, and taxpayer purchased plastic turtle props. It would be made clear in press releases that no real turtles were harmed, lest we worry. The federal press releases for this activity would be glorious and be seen by most being read verbatim by a horrified network newsreader tossing her hair incredulously while sports scores scroll underneath the screen. A hammer over a turtle outline could be the graphic floating next to the newsreader’s head.

Or, attempts may be made to paint a rancher as evil by trying to compile statistics of drug loads arriving in the interior of the U.S. that federal experts would suggest must have traversed the rancher’s land; proving unequivocally, that the rancher can’t manage the grazing land as effectively as armed federal bureaucrats who will keep us safe from beef cattle on that land and other productive uses. These actions will all increase to prove that the feds will not be dictated to.

Although I cheer for the Bundys and applaud the courage of their sweet family, my heart would much rather see them running now and hiding out in a freer country like Mexico as opposed to becoming a decimated family of martyrs ravaged by the state.

Range showdown draws armed supporters to Nevada

Flanked by armed supporters, Cliven Bundy speaks at a protest camp near Bunkerville, Nev. Friday, April 18, 2014. (John Locher/Las Vegas Review-Journal)

By Associated Press
Washington Post

LAS VEGAS — To self-described militia members sleeping in wind-whipped tents, drinking camp coffee and patrolling rocky hillsides with military-style weapons, protecting Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his family from an overreaching federal government is a patriotic duty.

“There are people out here who will sacrifice their lives and their fortunes and their sacred honor to defend them,” said Jerry DeLemus, a camouflaged former U.S. Marine sergeant from New Hampshire who called himself the leader of a Bundy security force of some 40 people.

“If someone points a gun at me, I’ll definitely point my gun back,” he said.

The armed campers are still guarding Bundy’s melon farm and cattle ranch a week after a tense standoff between gun-toting states’ rights advocates and federal Bureau of Land Management police over a roundup of Bundy cattle from public rangeland.

The BLM backed off, citing safety concerns. They were faced with military-style AR-15 and AK-47 weapons trained on them from a picket line of citizen soldiers on an Interstate 15 overpass, with dozens of woman and children in the possible crossfire.

BLM police released the 380 cattle collected, gave up the weeklong roundup and lifted a closure of a vast range half the size of the state Delaware. The agency said it would resolve the matter “administratively and judicially.”

Left unresolved was the government’s claim that Bundy owes more than $1.1 million in fees and penalties for letting some 900 cows trespass for 20 years on arid rangeland of scrub brush, mesquite, cheat grass and yucca near the rustic town of Bunkerville, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

Bundy backers claimed victory.

“We won the battle of Bunkerville,” said retiree Bevalyn Marshall, 53, who heads home at night to nearby Scenic, Ariz., but returns by day with her shotgun and her Vietnam veteran husband to a makeshift stage lined with fluttering flags.

It’s a place where conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh’s voice spills out of travel trailers, and a woman waves a sign at passing traffic reading, “Come Stand With Us For Freedom.”

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., called Bundy’s supporters “domestic terrorists” and said a federal task force was being formed to deal with the unrest. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., told a KSNV-TV interviewer on Friday: “What Sen. Reid may call domestic terrorists, I call patriots.”

Where Heller saw Boy Scouts, veterans and grandparents cordoned off by federal agents, Reid saw a crowd of 600, including men armed with automatic weapons in sniper positions on the freeway overpass, and women and children facing BLM agents in the riverbed below.

Bundy, the 67-year-old patriarch of a Mormon family with more than 50 grandchildren, seems to enjoy the attention. He met the media this week flanked by personal guards headed by a man who called himself Buddha Cavalier.

Bundy took to the stage fashioned from a flatbed trailer to tell reporters he wants sheriffs around the country to seize weapons from federal bureaucrats. He invited everyone to a Friday barbecue at the Virgin River, and rode a horse waving an American flag for photographers.

Then he headed to a Fox News trailer for an interview with conservative TV commentator Sean Hannity.

Bundy said he doesn’t recognize federal authority on the land his family settled and has used since the late 1870s, when Bunkerville was founded.

His dispute with the BLM dates to 1993, when the government designated the scenic Gold Butte area as protected habitat for the endangered desert tortoise and cut his allotment of cows. Bundy quit paying grazing fees that today can be as little as $1.35 per cow per month.

The agency canceled his grazing permit and ordered him to remove his cattle. Federal judges upheld the agency action.

The dispute has reopened a debate about federal land ownership and states’ rights in a Western region where the BLM controls vast stretches of rangeland. Federal park, military and land agencies today control more than 85 percent of the land in Nevada. In New York, by comparison, the figure is about 1 percent.

“This would never happen in any state east of the Mississippi, because they own their own land,” said Janine Hansen, a state’s rights advocate.

Not everyone supports Bundy’s resistance. Andy Robinson, a pub and pizzeria owner in the nearby resort town of Mesquite, said he didn’t like bloggers and radio talk show hosts comparing the standoff with deadly federal confrontations at a religious compound in Texas in 1993 and a farm house in Idaho in 1992.

“Being compared to Waco and Ruby Ridge doesn’t help anything,” Robinson said.

Ammon Bundy, 38, one of 14 Bundy children, was hit with stun gun darts fired by BLM agents during a confrontation 10 days ago. He was not charged with a crime. He said his father received several certified letters this week from the BLM, but hasn’t opened them.

BLM spokesman Mitch Snow said the letters offer Bundy a chance to keep his cattle if he pays the $1.1 million in trespass fees, plus “reasonable expenses of the impoundment.” Agency officials have said the contract for the roundup was $900,000.

Demar Dahl, a prominent rancher who pays his grazing fees, said he knows Bundy won’t back down. “He’s got his mind made up that he’s not going to leave,” Dahl said. “Cliven is the last man standing. He has taken the position that the state of Nevada owns the land, not the federal government.”

DeLemus and other armed campers say they have no plans to leave. They suspect government drones and helicopters are watching them.

“We stay until the Bundys tell us we can go home,” said Jack Commerford, DeLemus’ friend from New Hampshire who drove 41 hours cross-country with a yellow “Don’t Tread on Me” flag.

Right or wrong, controversy surrounding Cliven Bundy continues

Cliven Bundy during a press conference, Bunkerville, Nev., April 14, 2014 (Photo by Mori Kessler, St. George News)

Written by Mori Kessler
St. George News

ST. GEORGE – It has been a week since the standoff between the Bureau of Land Management and the supporters of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy. Since then the 67-year-old rancher has been hailed as a hero and a villain. During this last week, Cliven Bundy has called for the disarmament of “federal bureaucracies” by county sheriffs; detractors have decried the supposed use of human shields during the standoff; dead cattle and destroyed infrastructure have been found on the ranch; and one of the nation’s most powerful Democrats has labeled Bundy supporters “domestic terrorists.”

There remain two very different opinions over what lies at the heart of the ongoing conflict between the BLM and Cliven Bundy.

• The BLM maintains the rancher has illegally grazed his cattle on public land for 20 years and owes $1 million in grazing and trespass fees. To them, the rancher stands in violation of two federal court orders and continues to engage in illegal activity on public lands. The BLM began to round up Bundy’s cattle on April 5, but ultimately ended operations due to “grave concern about the safety of employees and members of the public.”
• Cliven Bundy has declared that the federal government has no authority to own lands within a state according to the Constitution, and thus chooses to not recognize the federal authority. Cliven Bundy and his supporters see this as a states’ rights issue and example of government overreach and overreaction. For them, the issue is much bigger than unpaid fees and cows.

So who owns the land?

According to two federal district court orders, the federal government owns the land. The BLM itself manages the land as an arm of the Department of the Interior.

In both court orders, the first from 1998 and the second from 2013, the court ruled that the federal government has jurisdiction over the land.

Despite using arguments of state sovereignty, the court declared Bundy’s claims to be “without merit,” and that “suggestions to the contrary are entirely unavailing.”

For their part, the Bundys have never claimed to own land beyond their 150-acre ranch in Bunkerville, Nev. However, they claim grazing and water rights to the land predate those of the BLM, said Ammon Bundy, a son of Cliven Bundy and family spokesman. As such, those claims should be honored, the Bundy family has said.

The Bundys argue the public land is state-owned – period. As for the federal government, Cliven Bundy refuses to recognize it in this capacity.

In the end, as much as states’ rights advocates argue otherwise, the federal government retains control of the public lands in the West. However, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, and Oregon are pursuing measures promoting the transfer of public lands over to state control.

The majority of the land overseen by the BLM is in the West. Nevada is over 80 percent public land, or, as argued by the BLM – over 80 percent of Nevada is owned by the federal government.

Human shield controversy

It has been widely reported that Richard Mack, a supporter of the Bundys and a former Arizona sheriff, told Fox News that a strategy had been put in place to set women on the front lines during the standoff, according to The Blaze.

“If they are going to start shooting,” Mack said, “it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

Mack is the founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officer’s Association, and arrived in Nevada to support the Bundys, albeit after the standoff took place, Ammon Bundy said.

“Sheriff Mack wasn’t even there,” Ammon Bundy said. “There was no strategy.”

He said the women were there because they chose to be there.

One of those woman was Lilley Bundy-Spencer, one of Cliven Bundy’s sisters.

“There were some tense moments that could have turned to tragedy, but didn’t,” Lilley Bundy-Spencer said.

“We do have tough women in our family and community,” Ammon Bundy said.

As for how the media is characterizing Mack’s words, Ammon Bundy said: “You can spin it how you want.”

Damaged infrastructure and dead cattle

In a press conference Monday, Ammon Bundy said a dead bull had been found on the range and some dead animals – two calves, 3-4 months old – were also found in the corrals where the BLM had been keeping the cattle before being forced to release them. There was also a corral full of injured animals, he said.

The Bundys have since found another dead bull and a grave where at least one cow was found buried. There was fresh dirt around the area where a cow’s leg was found sticking out of the ground, Ammon Bundy said.

Craig Leff, a BLM spokesman, said in an email: “Two bulls were euthanized, both of which posed a safety hazard. The gather and holding had been conducted according to best practices for gathering cattle.”

As for infrastructure, Ammon Bundy said a watering station has been destroyed. Fences and corrals were also reportedly damaged, as were water lines.

“As part of the operation,” Leff said, “the BLM was completing range improvements to remove structures illegally placed on public lands that damaged the land and water.”

As for any possible damage the roundup could have done to desert tortoise habitat, Leff said: “The BLM completed an environmental assessment prior to the operation that included measures to minimize the impact of the operation on desert tortoise and desert tortoise habitat.”

Manipulated by fringe elements?

In the wake of the April 9 viral video that showed an altercation between the BLM and Bundys, people from across the West and across the nation poured into the Bundy Ranch to show their support. Among those supporters were armed individuals and militia men who began to act as security and body guards for the Bundys.

Following the standoff between the BLM and the Bundys and their supporters, commentator Glenn Beck said on his program that Cliven Bundy’s cause – that public lands should belong to the states and not the federal government – was attracting a fringe element.

“They don’t care what the facts are, they just want a fight,” Beck said, according to TheBlaze.

“You’re always going to attract those kind of people,” Ammon Bundy said. “The BLM attracts them too – people attracted to power and authority.”

Asked whether or not he felt his father and his message were possibly being manipulated by outsiders that poured in with the militia, Ammon Bundy said “no”.

“No, not one bit,” he said. “Believe me, if the BLM can’t do it, no one can, and the BLM is all about manipulation.”

The people here love freedom and are worried about it, Ammon Bundy said. He also had something to say about the negative view popular media had toward the militia.

“Militia is not a bad word,” he said. “It’s a right in the Constitution. They are the people’s army that are called upon when the government fails.”

“Domestic terrorists” and Patriot Party

“Those people who hold themselves out to be patriots are not. They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,” Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, told the Las Vegas Review Journal Thursday during a press event.

Reid said he has spoken to Clark County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, and the FBI and Department of the Interior about the Cliven Bundy situation.

“It is an issue that we cannot let go, just walk away from,” Reid said.

Cliven Bundy and his supporters are taking the label in stride. The Bundys held a “Patriot Party” at their ranch Friday in honor of the people who supported them during the conflict with the BLM.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal was also at the Patriot Party, and reported Cliven Bundy being on stage and asking the crowd if they were domestic terrorists. The crowd responded with cheers and applause. Many of them wore name tags with “domestic terrorists” written on them.

Live music was provided by Madison Rising and Ron Keel, and while people gathered and celebrated, militia men continued to stand guard around the ranch.

The fight between Cliven Bundy and the federal government is far from over. The BLM has vowed to continue the fight “administratively and judicially.”

“Here’s a citizen defying them,” Ammon Bundy said. “Civilian disobedience. They can’t have that.”

He also said his father has had a number of lawyers approach him who are offering to look into his case for free. Having been to the federal level twice, however, some, including Reid, have said Cliven Bundy has exhausted his options in court.

Washington County Commissioner Alan Gardner said during the Washington County Republican Convention that Bundy’s dispute with the BLM has brought the issue of public lands to the forefront.

Gardner, like many commissioners across Utah, support having ownership and control of public land transferred from the federal government to the states. While other western states are exploring the possibility, Utah passed legislation to this affect in 2012.

Bundy supporters party, welcome ‘domestic terrorist’ label

Justin Giles of Wasilla, Alaska stands on a bridge over the Virgin River during a rally in support of Cliven Bundy near Bunkerville, Nev. Friday, April 18, 2014. (John Locher/Las Vegas Review-Journal)

By KEITH ROGERS
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

BUNKERVILLE — Wearing a cowboy hat and with a copy of the U.S. Constitution poking from his shirt pocket, controversial rancher Cliven Bundy on Friday asked dozens of supporters of his cattle-grazing feud with federal land managers what they thought of U.S. Sen. Harry Reid calling them “domestic terrorists.”

“Are you guys domestic terrorists?” he asked the crowd gathered around a stage near the north bank of the Virgin River.

The supporters, many wearing name tags that said “domestic terrorist,” erupted with cheers and applause.

“That’s what I thought. I thought Harry was right,” said the 67-year-old Bundy, who was accompanied by armed escorts.

He made the statement before a “Patriot Party” that started at 5 p.m. with music by Madison Rising and Ron Keel, who sang with Black Sabbath briefly in 1984. A party atmosphere among a few hundred people grew as more supporters trickled in around 5 p.m. Some people were cooling off in the river while dozens of armed militia members wearing camouflaged fatigues patrolled in and around the area.

Bundy was reacting to Reid’s comments Thursday in Las Vegas describing him as a law-breaker for not paying grazing fees and an estimated $1 million he owes the Bureau of Land Management for 20 years of non-compliance with public lands grazing privileges and defiance of court orders to remove up to 900 head of his desert cattle that roamed the Gold Butte area.

BLM agents and contractors on horseback and helicopters rounded up more than 300 of the herd but released them back to Bundy and his backers after an armed standoff on April 12. Because his militia supporters had rifles and assault weapons pointed to where federal officers guarded a corral holding the cattle, Reid on Thursday said a task force would be assigned to deal with what he described as domestic terrorists.

The Bundy camp had asked that the federal law enforcers remove their guns and secure them in a truck while the cattle were released.

At Friday’s news conference, Bundy said, “We’re not asking the county sheriff to disarm the citizens of the United States. We’re asking the United States to take the government-issued guns away from these people, and when they have uniforms on they shouldn’t be packing a gun.”

Asked what he’d do if he was served with a warrant for violating federal laws, Bundy answered, “What I said is, I’d yield to the sheriff but I wouldn’t yield to the feds.”

If the sheriff served the warrant he said he’d surrender. “Well, I’d have to.”

He said he has a right to graze his cattle on public land, not just a privilege.

“They’re rights. And I own those rights,” he said.

Bundy told his supporters that they were the heroes in the standoff, not him.

“You are the heroes. You people are the ones who did it,” Bundy told them.

When a few of the supporters were asked what they thought of Reid calling them “domestic terrorists,” they welcomed the label.

“Him and his organization are the terrorists of this country,” John Vasilchin, 85, of Las Vegas, said about Reid.

“They’ve been destroying this country for the last eight years and previously back to (President Bill) Clinton,” Vasilchin said.

Mike Vanderboegh said he will unveil the “2014 incitement to civil war trophy” to Reid on Saturday at the protest area.

“Harry Reid said this ain’t over. You better believe this ain’t over,” said Vanderboegh, a self-described “Second Amendment activist” from Alabama.

Sitting inside his camper off a road in view of the Virgin River, Thomas Firth offered his perspective on Reid’s domestic terrorist description.

“That would be typical of Senator Harry Reid,” said Firth, 64, of Anza, Calif. “Seems like it was a few years ago when we all got lumped either as a Christian, or a veteran or ‘you own a gun.’ You got lumped into that.

“If that’s the moniker they want to put on this, well so be it. I take a little bit different look at it. I think we are people who are actually standing up for our rights,” said Firth, a former cattle rancher.”

Star Hill, 45, made the short drive to the the rally from Logandale.

“For him to stoop to name-calling is probably pretty appropriate considering what people think of him,” she said about Reid.

She said she doesn’t consider herself a terrorist. Instead, “I consider myself somebody who came out to the river for a picnic.”

Senator urges hearing on Bundy ranch dispute

Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.)

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

By Mario Trujillo
The Hill

Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) on Friday called for a Senate hearing into the dispute between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over cattle grazing.

Heller described as "patriots" the people who came armed to Bundy’s ranch after the BLM began to seize his cattle for refusing to pay grazing fees and fines that now total more than $1 million.

Heller debated the ranch standoff on a Nevada television station with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who has called the armed Bundy supporters “domestic terrorists.”

"What senator Reid may call domestic terrorists, I call patriots," Heller said. "We have a very different view on this."

"If they are patriots, we are in trouble," Reid shot back.

Reid blasted the supporters for showing up with assault weapons and boasting about putting children in the front of the pack.

Asked if he wanted to clarify his "domestic terrorist" remarks, Reid said he meant "just what I said."

Heller blamed the BLM for inciting the incident by bringing in armed officials to help roundup the cattle. He said he wants to know who gave that order.

"I want to talk about the fact that they have this kind of authority and the ability to bully and come in with 200 armed men into a situation like this," he said. "I would like to have hearings. I would like to find out who is accountable for this.”

The BLM was acting on court orders to round up and remove the cattle from public land — a point Reid emphasized. Reid said the rancher does not recognize the federal government's authority, but said it is clear in the state constitution that the area in dispute is public land.

"These characters walk around with their Constitution in their pocket. They should read the Nevada Constitution," Reid said.

The Bureau of Land Management has said it would continue to try to solve the situation “administratively and judicially" after ceasing the roundup over the weekend over safety concerns.

Reid said it is unclear what happens next, but said he had talked to a number of federal and state officials about it.

“We can speculate all we want to speculate about what is going to happen next,” he said. “I don't think it is going to be tomorrow that something is going to happen, but something will happen.”

Sheriff caught in middle of Nevada rancher feud

Rancher Cliven Bundy (2nd L) greets Clark County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie in Bunkerville, Nevada on April 12, 2014. (REUTERS)

FoxNews.com

The family of the Nevada rancher in a simmering feud with the federal government over rangeland rights is refocusing attention on the local sheriff, claiming he could put the standoff to rest with a wave of his hand.

"He could stop this right now, and he knows that," Bailey Logue, daughter of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, recently told Fox News' "On the Record."

Logue claimed all the sheriff has to do is say "no" to federal authorities who for years have gone after Bundy for unpaid grazing fees. "He has more power than all those feds do in this county. This is his county, he runs it. He has got full control over this county. If he says no, they have to back down," Logue said.

Other supporters have made similar comments, suggesting Clark County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie can tell the federal Bureau of Land Management to high-tail out of Nevada.

Gillespie backed federal agents who seized close to 400 head of cattle from Bundy over his refusal to pay more than $1 million in grazing fees over the past two decades.

The sheriff now appears to be caught in the middle of a broader battle between landowners and the federal government -- a battle not just over grazing rights, but the basic authority of federal officials. Despite the family's claims that the sheriff could kick out the feds in an instant, Gillespie has told media outlets he is simply following the law.

The Nevada state Constitution would appear to underscore federal authority, as it allows the federal government to "employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority" if people try to secede or "forcibly resist the Execution of" federal laws.

Gillespie, who was elected sheriff in 2007, has more than three decades under his belt with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. As Clark County's top law enforcement official, he oversees more than 4,700 sworn officers and civilian employees and is responsible for the safety of nearly 2 million Vegas residents as well as 40 million visitors to America's party capital each year.

Gillespie's office has not made the sheriff available for an interview despite repeated requests by FoxNews.com.

Before the ranch standoff, Gillespie's reputation was relatively unsullied. Earlier this year, Gillespie was named by the National Sheriff's Association as the winner of the Ferris E. Lucas Award as Sheriff of the Year for 2014. The award has only been given to 18 people since 1995 -- and there are 3,080 sheriffs in the country.

Gillespie, though, surprised local residents when he announced late last year he would not seek a third term, instead saying he would finish out his second term through the end of 2014.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., also presented Gillespie with a Congressional Proclamation for being selected Sheriff of the Year. Gillespie's closeness with Reid has recently made him the target of vitriol-laced accusations by Bundy's supporters, who have called him a turncoat.

Reid fanned the flames further Thursday when he referred to Bundy backers as "domestic terrorists" during an event sponsored by the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Reid also indicated that Gillespie continues to play an active role with the feds -- Reid, according to the Review-Journal, said Gillespie is working with federal officials on putting together a task force to deal with the Bundy family.

"Clive Bundy does not recognize the United States," Reid said. "The United States, he says, is a foreign government. He doesn't pay his taxes. He doesn't pay his fees. And he doesn't follow the law. He continues to thumb his nose at authority."

Officials tell FoxNews.com that it's likely they'll renew their efforts soon, though they declined to say when a new push against Bundy would take place.

For the Bundy family, it's a decades-old, legally complicated fight between the federal government and a family that has ranched the area since 1877. Last week's dustup ended Saturday with federal land managers backing down during a standoff with Bundy after hundreds of states' rights protesters and armed militia members showed up in support of Bundy and in protest of government officers seizing his cattle.

But the feud dates back decades, and this isn't Bundy's first time at the rodeo.

The dispute started in March 1993 when the Bureau of Land Management designated hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land for strict conservation efforts.

That meant eliminating livestock grazing and imposing strict limits on off-road vehicle use in protected tortoise territory in Nevada.

The BLM purchased grazing rights from cattle ranchers who had previously used BLM land. It was then when the Bundy family, who had a ranch in the area in 1877, accused the government of a "land grab," and said they wouldn't sell.

The Bundy family has maintained they do not recognize federal authority on what they say is their land.

Congressman Accuses Obama Administration Of Illegal Action At Bundy Ranch

He cites a severe violation of U.S. Code

Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX)

B. Christopher Agee
Western Journalism

After the federal Bureau of Land Management agents backed down from their intimidating stance at the Bundy Ranch last weekend, ample evidence has surfaced indicating the standoff between the government and the Nevada ranching family is far from over. Throughout the weeklong stalemate, members of the Bundy family were physically assaulted by armed officers, numerous cows were shot dead, and protesters faced threats of gunfire for merely expressing their outrage.

Immediately after what many considered a victory against a tyrannical federal agency, a number of leftist voices – most notably, Sen. Harry Reid – indicated the action against this family will continue.

In response, Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman sent a letter to Barack Obama, Department of the Interior Sec. Sally Jewell, and BLM Director Neil Kornze, laying out his position that any such action by the agency would violate the U.S. Constitution.

“Because of this standoff,” he wrote, “I have looked into BLM’s authority to conduct such paramilitary raids against American citizens, and it appears that BLM is acting in a lawless manner in Nevada.”

He cited the limited powers granted to the federal government, noting the bureau has no “right to assume preemptory police powers, that role being reserved to the States,” and explained “many federal laws require the federal government to seek assistance from local law enforcement whenever the use of force may become necessary.”

The letter included a section of the U.S. Code — 43 U.S.C. Section 1733, Subsection C — stating exactly that point. [Emphasis Stockman's]

“When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations.”

In the case of the Bundy Ranch, he continued, “the relevant local law enforcement officials appear to be the Sheriff of Clark County, Nevada, Douglas C. Gillespie.”

Gillespie, however, conspicuously took a back seat to BLM forces during the standoff.

“Indeed,” Stockman wrote, “the exact type of crisis that the federal government has provoked at the Bundy ranch is the very type of incident that Congress knew could be avoided by relying on local law enforcement officials.”

The stated purpose of the correspondence is for the Obama administration “to bring the BLM into compliance with 43 U.S.C. section 1733.”

Absent a full investigation into the agency’s actions, he concluded, “the federal government must not only stand down, but remove all federal personnel from anywhere near the Bundy ranch.”

Legislators and law enforcement personnel have stood alongside state militia members and the Bundy family in opposing the excessive force employed by the BLM. Stockman’s letter adds even more weight to the growing sentiment against the federal overreach.

Shrink feds' share of the West

Nevada ranch standoff illustrates how much land Washington unnecessarily owns.

EDITORIAL
ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

For a brief period late last week, American politics seemed to be transported back to the 1990s. The source of the time warp: Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher who was engaged in a tense standoff with officials from the federal government’s Bureau of Land Management.

At issue was the fact that the feds were removing Mr. Bundy’s cattle from federal lands on which he had failed to pay grazing fees for more than two decades. With both sides threatening force – Mr. Bundy joined by armed sympathists [sic], the BLM bringing snipers to the scene – it was hard to avoid the memories of violent ’90s conflicts like Ruby Ridge and Waco.

Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed in the Silver State, and armed conflict was avoided. It would have been to the eternal discredit of either side had bloodshed resulted from such a low-stakes fight. Disputes over grazing rights aren’t grounds for summoning either armed militias or militarized law enforcement.

Mr. Bundy, it bears noting, is far from blameless in this situation. He’s been in clear violation of the law for more than 20 years. And his justification for the defiance – that he doesn’t recognize the authority of the federal government – is risible.

While we may not be sympathetic to Mr. Bundy’s specific arguments, we are, however, sensitive to his underlying grievance. The land on which Mr. Bundy’s cattle were grazing had been used by his family for ranching since the late 19th century. During the past few decades, however, federal officials have greatly constrained private access to those lands, while raising the attendant fees – a pattern that has happened throughout the West, taking a devastating toll on the ranching industry. That doesn’t justify Mr. Bundy’s one-man exercise in nullification, but it does call the propriety of the government’s role into question.

The deeper issue here is the excessive control that the federal government exercises over land in the American West. In Nevada, the feds own 81 percent of the state’s acreage, according to the Congressional Research Service. Here in California, nearly half – 47.7 percent – of our land belongs to Washington.

There are plenty of instances, of course, where such ownership is entirely unobjectionable. No one doubts the necessity, for instance, of Washington owning the land necessary for military installations and our national parks. But why should property that doesn’t serve such vital purposes remain in government hands?

We’d like to see Washington divest itself of such holdings. The resulting income could swell the Treasury without raising taxes on anyone. And putting more land in private hands would allow residents of these states to negotiate issues like grazing rights through private exchanges – not threats delivered at gunpoint.

Mr. Bundy was in the wrong in the Nevada standoff – but that doesn’t make the system he was railing against any less unjust.