• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Question for Tam...

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
If the the US Government was to legislate gun confiscation, and the SCOTUS upheld the law, would you say citizens are breaking the Rule of Law, if they refuse

How about the long gun registry, know anybody that refused to register their guns
 

Tam

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
If the the US Government was to legislate gun confiscation, and the SCOTUS upheld the law, would you say citizens are breaking the Rule of Law, if they refuse

How about the long gun registry, know anybody that refused to register their guns

You are reaching Hyp :wink: But I 'm willing to guess this would happen nation wide if they tried :wink:

Colorado voters deal blow to gun control with stunning recall of 2 Democrats
By Valerie Richardson
The Washington Times
Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Colorado Senate President John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, concedes defeat in his legislative recall race in Colorado Springs, Colo., on Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2013. Morse and Sen. Angela Giron, of Pueblo, who voted for new firearms restrictions in the state, faced the first legislative recalls in state
DENVER — A Rocky Mountain earthquake in the form of Tuesday’s successful recall drives targeting two prominent Democrats who advocate gun control has shifted the state and national political landscape going into the 2014 elections.

The shocking defeat Tuesday night of two state lawmakers in Colorado’s first-ever legislative recall election despite a 7-1 spending advantage by gun control proponents represented a double blow for Democrats. It could hobble the party’s political dominance in the state and reshape the political debate over gun laws nationally in the 2014 midterm elections.

And

How Senate Democrats, not just House Republicans, will block gun control

A filibuster-proof majority in Senate is already a stretch, but red state Democrats up for re-election may make it unreachable

Harry J Enten
theguardian.com, Tuesday 15 January 2013 17.53 GMT
:wink:

As far as the long gun question, We registered our long guns, we even took an old 32 Winchester Special from a elderly friend that was going to destroy it verses registering it and register in my name to save it from a burning barrel. A few RCMP officers and couple Conservation officers have even seen it hanging in my gallery and have asked where it came from and how old it is as they thought it was neat, considering I talk about the Outlaw history of the area everyday to the tourist in the summer. :wink: As far as our neighbors, the topic has never came up so can't tell you of any but if they had stood up in a court of law and admitted they had non-registered guns when it was required I'm guess the RCMP would have followed them home and taken them.
And I will admit I was pretty glad the waste of money was shut down and that is what Canadian voters did by voting the Liberals that created the billion dollar boondoogle out of office and put in a majority CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT. It never worked as the liberals promised but then what ever does when it comes to a government? :roll:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
So, is Federal land ownership in the US constitutional? Any limits on Federal land ownership?

Can those that made Federal land ownership legal, but not Constitutional, be voted out of office?
 

Tam

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Not Tam but was that an Amendment to the Constitution?

nope, just a law, like obamacare...and then an interpretation of the constitution, by SCOTUS

Here is a question for you Hyp this in the wording of the Second Amendment that was passed an upheld for a over 200 hundred years



As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:[29]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[30]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

DO you really think SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED will not stand in any SCOTUS ruling? :?

Here is another question for you since you seem to be taking Bundy's side with your questions. :wink: :wink:

In light of the wording of the Second Amendment that has been the law of the land for 200+ years, that states people have the right to keep and bear arms, and btw videos prove the Bundy family and their friends were definitely exercising their Second Amendment rights, even though the family "claimed" they had required their protesters leave their guns in their vehicles as not to provoke the other side, do you support Bundy taking to the air waves and demanding that the government disarm the men that were sent there to protect the BLM employees from a guy, his family and gun toting friends, while they were carrying out a legal court order to seize the Bundy cattle, after he admitted in court he would do ANYTHING to stop the BLM's actions of removing his cattle from Federal lands? Bit of a Second Amendment hypocrite to be standing next to his son that was wearing a side arm in plain sight of the cameras and demanding the government disarm anyone isn't it? :?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I am siding with the Constitution, concerning federal ownership of land...the same as you are, concerning gun rights :wink:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is known as the Enclave Clause. The clause gives federal control over the “Seat of Government” (Washington D.C.) and land that has been purchased by the federal government with consent of the state legislatures to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8). Nothing more.

State permission being a requirement, state authority was explicitly emphasized while drafting this clause. The founders and respective states insisted (with loud cries) that the states must consent before the federal government could purchase land from the states. Nowhere in this clause will you find the power for Congress to exercise legislative authority through regulation over 80% of Nevada, 55% of Utah, 45% of California, 70% of Alaska, or any other state. Unless, of course, the state has given the federal government the formal authority to do so, which they have not.

Read more: http://benswann.com/lofti-who-actually-owns-americas-land-a-deeper-look-at-the-bundy-ranch-crisis/#ixzz2ywPuvrkY
Follow us: @BenSwann_ on Twitter
 

Steve

Well-known member
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

seems this ten miles square needs to be "surveyed",..
 

Tam

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
I am siding with the Constitution, concerning federal ownership of land...the same as you are, concerning gun rights :wink:

Then you be sure to jump on the first plane to Nevada and tell them they don't need a committee to bring Public Land ownership and control back to their state Hyp as I'm sure they would love to not need to spend the money to get something you think they own, back. :wink: :roll:

Meet the Pro-Bundy Nevada Official Who Wants to Transfer Land Control to the State and Calls the Feds’ Action ‘Unprecedented’
Apr. 13, 2014 7:00pm Becket Adams
•Elko County, Nev., Commissioner Demar Dahl said that the land in dispute in the case of rancher Cliven Bundy does belong to the federal government.
•However, he’s part of a state-sanctioned task force charged with bringing public land under state control.
•He believes the government’s response to the dispute has been “unprecedented.”
•The man who says he’s a friend of Bundy’s also added that the rancher did try to pay the county his grazing fees instead of the federal government.
•“I don’t know why he hasn’t mentioned this more often.”

A Nevada county commissioner whose fighting to find a way to bring public land under state control said Sunday that the land involved in a dispute between rancher Cliven Bundy, 67, and federal agencies does indeed belong to the U.S. government, but he said he supports the veteran rancher in his opposition to government overreach.

He also thinks the government’s response has been excessive.

“The land that he’s talking about, that he has been using, that’s land that belongs to the federal government,” Elko County Commissioner and rancher Demar Dahl — who added he’s a personal friend of Bundy — said on Sunday during a phone interview with TheBlaze.

“That’s been part of what this fight is about.”

Along with being a rancher and an extremely active member of his community, Dahl chairs the Nevada Land Management Task Force, a group formed in 2013 by the state legislature and charged with developing a legal means to transfer control of public lands from the federal government to the state.

“That’s part of what we do,” Dahl said. “We have been working to develop a process to bring control of those lands to the state. So [Bundy] is on government land, but we want to find a process to have those lands controlled by the state.”

The task force consists of 17 members, each from a different county in Nevada. The group has already held four meetings to discuss plans to transfer control of the public lands to the state. The task force has eight more meetings scheduled for this year and hopes to present its plan for the transfer to the Legislative Committee on Public Lands by September 1, 2014.

“We’re looking for ways to afford this and see if we can manage it,” he added. “Once we transfer the control, nothing would change about the land. It’ll still be public. People can still use them; they can still visit them.”

The land being fought over by Bundy and federal agents, some 600,000 acres in Gold Butte, Nev., belongs to the U.S. government, according to a 2013 U.S. District Court ruling.

“[T]he public lands in 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 court said, adding that the federal government lawfully acquired ownership of the land under the Treaty of the Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Claims that local ranchers should have more rights to the public land, Dahl said, is why the state formed the Nevada Land Management Task Force. The group aims to offer what the federal government offers, but at a local level that better understands the needs and concerns of Nevada’s ranchers.
Meet the Pro-Bundy Nevada Official Who Wants to Transfer Land Control to the State and Calls the Feds’ Action ‘Unprecedented’
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/13/meet-the-pro-bundy-nevada-official-who-wants-to-transfer-land-control-to-the-state-and-calls-the-feds-action-unprecedented/

And what was it Cliven told the reporters Hyp. :? OH YEA If this is Federal Land then I'm in the WRONG.

Looks like his Nevada Commissioner buddy needs to have a little talk with old Cliven. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
I am siding with the Constitution, concerning federal ownership of land...the same as you are, concerning gun rights :wink:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is known as the Enclave Clause. The clause gives federal control over the “Seat of Government” (Washington D.C.) and land that has been purchased by the federal government with consent of the state legislatures to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8). Nothing more.

State permission being a requirement, state authority was explicitly emphasized while drafting this clause. The founders and respective states insisted (with loud cries) that the states must consent before the federal government could purchase land from the states. Nowhere in this clause will you find the power for Congress to exercise legislative authority through regulation over 80% of Nevada, 55% of Utah, 45% of California, 70% of Alaska, or any other state. Unless, of course, the state has given the federal government the formal authority to do so, which they have not.

Read more: http://benswann.com/lofti-who-actually-owns-americas-land-a-deeper-look-at-the-bundy-ranch-crisis/#ixzz2ywPuvrkY
Follow us: @BenSwann_ on Twitter

So do you then consider President Jefferson's purchase and subsequent U.S. ownership of the Louisiana Purchase and President Johnsons purchase of Alaska to be unconstitutional and illegal ... :???:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Tam said:
Then you be sure to jump on the first plane to Nevada and tell them they don't need a committee to bring Public Land ownership and control back to their state Hyp as I'm sure they would love to not need to spend the money to get something you think they own, back. :wink: :roll:


In 1979, Nevada enacted a state law asserting state
title, and management and disposal authority over public (BLM) lands within
Nevada’s boundaries.

Similar state laws asserting state authority over public lands
were passed in Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah, and
Wyoming.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
I am siding with the Constitution, concerning federal ownership of land...the same as you are, concerning gun rights :wink:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is known as the Enclave Clause. The clause gives federal control over the “Seat of Government” (Washington D.C.) and land that has been purchased by the federal government with consent of the state legislatures to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8). Nothing more.

State permission being a requirement, state authority was explicitly emphasized while drafting this clause. The founders and respective states insisted (with loud cries) that the states must consent before the federal government could purchase land from the states. Nowhere in this clause will you find the power for Congress to exercise legislative authority through regulation over 80% of Nevada, 55% of Utah, 45% of California, 70% of Alaska, or any other state. Unless, of course, the state has given the federal government the formal authority to do so, which they have not.

Read more: http://benswann.com/lofti-who-actually-owns-americas-land-a-deeper-look-at-the-bundy-ranch-crisis/#ixzz2ywPuvrkY
Follow us: @BenSwann_ on Twitter

So do you then consider President Jefferson's purchase and subsequent U.S. ownership of the Louisiana Purchase and President Johnsons purchase of Alaska to be unconstitutional and illegal ... :???:



OT, I didn't say the initial purchase was illegal...but retention of Federal lands was considered unconstitutional.

How many acres of Federal lands in Alaska, were given to the state?


In 1978, the State of Nevada began its court challenge of
the constitutionality of the federal land retention policy in § 102(a) of FLPMA.

Nevada argued that the federal government could only lawfully hold public la
nds in a temporary trust pending eventual disposal, and that retention of the lands violated the equal footing
doctrine

FLPMA also amended many previous management authorities and public land and resource laws and repealed most land disposal laws.

The other 1964 law, the Classification and Multiple Use Act, directed BLM to classify lands for retention or for disposal and to manage the lands for multiple purposes, pending the PLLRC recommendations. By 1970, when the PLLRC report was released, BLM had classified more than 90% of the remaining unreserved public domain lands for retention. This reflected
the decline in federal land disposal to nearly zero in the 1960s

The initial policy of the federal government generally was to transfer ownership of many of the federal lands to private and state hands
 

Tam

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Tam said:
Then you be sure to jump on the first plane to Nevada and tell them they don't need a committee to bring Public Land ownership and control back to their state Hyp as I'm sure they would love to not need to spend the money to get something you think they own, back. :wink: :roll:


In 1979, Nevada enacted a state law asserting state
title, and management and disposal authority over public (BLM) lands within
Nevada’s boundaries.

Similar state laws asserting state authority over public lands
were passed in Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah, and
Wyoming.

Like I said you jump right on a plane and run down to Nevada and straighten those mixed up Nevadans out. No sense having to pay a group of guys sitting around planning something YOU THINK is not needed. :roll: BTW maybe the next time Cliven Bundy needs a lawyer to represent himself in Federal Court you can be sure to be there Ok :wink: as I hear he represented himself the last time and look what it got him. I'm sure with all your beliefs you can get the courts to back right down. :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
How in the H*LL does that have anything to with the fact the Federal Government and the Nevada State government that created the task force, that Bundy's family friend sits on, that is in charge of transferring ownership and control of the FEDERAL PUBILC LANDS IN THE STATE OF NEVADA BACK TO NEVADA STATE CONTROL, are on the total opposite side of this issue from you.

Hyp tonight as I see it you are playing stupid and winning. :roll:
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Tam, how do you choose which parts of the Constitution to support?

Since you brought up the Hage case do you have any idea why it's not used as Precedent in the Bundy case?

I haven't seen where Hage had a rmed stand off. Did he?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
The Congress shall have Power To ...exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings....
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
He didn't win until he was dead and his ranch was gone either...


http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news50.htm

Is all his work in vane if Bundys have a armed insurrection after what Wayne Hage did for the western rancher?
 
Top