Serowbot wrote on 04/19/14 at 11:41:56:Okay... restart..
Govn't bad,... Bundy good...
North pointed out a statute in the Nevada state law,.. that acknowledges the rights of the US govn't and declines any claim of ownership by private persons...
... and everyone here ignored it...
Why?... the law is clear...

...
...section 4, paragraph 4 of Nevada's Enabling Act application which states,
Quote: ” That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; …”.
These folks don't seem to be very impressed with the law North cited. And they are not exactly radical Ar-15 toting "teabillys".
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57836973-90/utah-lands-lawmakers-federa...Besides, when the current resident of the white house and his attorney general routinely ignore the law, why should Mr. Bundy be harassed for allegedly doing the same thing.
Quote:... claim of ownership by private persons....
Besides,Bundy has never claimed to own the land, he has just claimed the right to use it per longstanding practice and agreements, that he thinks were arbitrarily altered for political reasons. As I said in one of the deleted posts - Google "prescriptive rights" if you want some background on the legal precedence that may support Bundy's claim.
The way the BLM choose to handle the matter is what got folks upset, not the legal disagreement itself.