# Its Time for the States to take over Federal Land



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Western lawmakers gather in Utah to talk federal land takeover. I agree and believe it is time. The [email protected]$ idiots in DC have screwed the pooch time and time again and its time that the states control the land within their borders.

Western lawmakers gather in Utah to talk federal land takeover | The Salt Lake Tribune


----------



## slewfoot (Nov 6, 2013)

Slippy said:


> Western lawmakers gather in Utah to talk federal land takeover. I agree and believe it is time. The [email protected]$ idiots in DC have screwed the pooch time and time again and its time that the states control the land within their borders.
> 
> Western lawmakers gather in Utah to talk federal land takeover | The Salt Lake Tribune


Agree 100%


----------



## sparkyprep (Jul 5, 2013)

I agree. The federal government should not own ANY land.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

sparkyprep said:


> I agree. The federal government should not own ANY land.


Except that which is allowed by the constitution.

As is with all things federal, the government needs to return to the boundaries of the constitution, and this nation needs to return to the constitutional-republic and ditch the democracy notion.

Of course, this has as much chance or happening as run-over dog has to reanimate.


----------



## wesley762 (Oct 23, 2012)

Idaho has been trying to do this for years, the feds just keep saying nope.........


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

The Bundy thing is just the latest boondoggle courtesy of the feds. 

The introduction of wolves in Wyoming and Idaho is an ongoing debacle, the wildlife biologist involved in this said it succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Well....Their wildest dreams have expanded exponentially and now threaten livestock in Oregon. What were they thinking? That the wolves would stay inside the boundaries they established for the reintroduction. Apparently the wolves had a different take on what constitutes boundaries. 

So yes states should look long and hard at taking over the management of areas within their states that are currently under federal control. Not saying that federal lands should not exist within the states, rather that federally held lands should be significantly reduced in size and scope.

I really think we are starting to see a 10th amendment style push back against the overreach of federal government. States rights has sat on a back burner for a long time. Every time the feds pull a heavy handed Bundy the momentum to assert states rights grows. It's not a slam on the feds rather a growing realization by the average American that local governments are better suited to resolve local problems. 

The federal government is a one size fits all model of government. Which is fine because it's useful and necessary in some situations, like securing borders, providing defense and establishing trade agreements. It sucks at micro management. Leave that to the states, where it belongs.


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

I'll all for National parks, and the land the federal government buildings are on, but otherwise, the feds don't need to be owning land. The feds take our money, buy land with it, then charge us for the use of it, or throw us off it, something sounds wrong with that.


----------



## HuntingHawk (Dec 16, 2012)

If Nevada is serious about anything they should start by recalling Harry Reid. He is the source of most of the problems.


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

Denton said:


> Except that which is allowed by the constitution.
> 
> As is with all things federal, the government needs to return to the boundaries of the constitution, and this nation needs to return to the constitutional-republic and ditch the democracy notion.
> 
> Of course, this has as much chance or happening as run-over dog has to reanimate.


I completely agree with you Denton; "Except that which is allowed by the Constitution". If we don't live by it, how can we expect them to? With that, the Feds still need a smack down.

I personally would not mind seeing the "Western United States" succeed from the "Eastern United States". I have wished this for years. And California can either get with the program, or be blockaded. Or we simply cut the cancer out. Any way it's looked at though, things have got to change. And I fear that many on the East Coast may be "too far gone" with liberal brainwashing to be saved.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf (Nov 17, 2012)

whether Bundy is wrong are right isn't my main concern. But the fact the federal government now says it has a right to designate areas that they will recognize your constitutional rights.


----------



## jro1 (Mar 3, 2014)

sparkyprep said:


> I agree. The federal government should not own ANY land.


There shouldn't even be a Federal Gov, Get rid of em and clean the slate! It wouldn't hurt to start over again!


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

jro1 said:


> There shouldn't even be a Federal Gov, Get rid of em and clean the slate! It wouldn't hurt to start over again!


There are plenty of reasons to have a federal government. Tossing out the baby with the bath water is not the solution. Giving the dream of the founders a chance is definitely the better solution. Bigdogbuc made a good point, though. The bookend people of the nation, as a whole, might be too far brainwashed for the notion of independence, self- reliance and disciplined self-governance. That is to say, John Adams seems to have been proved to be a prophet.


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

I would love to see it but will say this. It AINT NEVER GOIN TO HAPPEN! The feds make and play by their own rules and change them while they are playing.. It is sad to say but I truly don't think things will change until something major happens or unless we decide to stop them with violence.. We need a revolution but just don't see it happening.


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

HuntingHawk said:


> If Nevada is serious about anything they should start by recalling Harry Reid. He is the source of most of the problems.


I figure Nevada, like a lot of other states, while there are plenty of good hard working people, are controlled (by votes) by the liberals who outnumber them from the big cities, in this case Las Vegas.


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

Moonshinedave said:


> I figure Nevada, like a lot of other states, while there are plenty of good hard working people, are controlled (by votes) by the liberals who outnumber them from the big cities, in this case Las Vegas.


That is so correct.. The big cities are filled with liberals and that is where they beat us in numbers.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Absolutely, the western states particularly, should take back their land from the federal government. The Nevada Rancher situation caused me to do a bit of research on Nevada history this week just to try and see why the federal government (henceforth known as the "feral government") even has so much land in Nevada.

The land Nevada sits on became part of the United States in 1848 following the defeat of the Mexicans. However, Nevada did not become a U.S. Territory until 1861. Until that time, it truly had no government at all. In 1861, the feral government led by the bastard Lincoln, rushed making Nevada an official U.S. Territory to prevent Nevada from joining the Confederacy. The bastard Lincoln sent troops into Nevada to violently suppress any groups deemed sympathetic to the Confederacy AS WELL AS murdering the Mormons who were being pushed out of Missouri and Utah Territory at the time.

In 1864, just 3 years after becoming a Territory, the bastard Lincoln rammed through Nevada becoming an official State just 8 days before the 1864 election. Of course, Nevada gave their 3 Electoral College votes to the bastard Lincoln. As part of the agreement to gaining statehood, the feral government forced Nevada to cede control of its lands to the feral government. 

The feral government then used the mineral rights, stolen from the people of Nevada, to help finance the War of Northern Aggression. Apparently the bastard Lincoln underestimated the enthusiasm Yankee businessmen would have for paying his illegal income tax to finance the war. In that regard, the Nevada statehood is really no different from the abortion mandate in Obamacare: stealing the wealth of one group of American citizens to finance the murder of another group of American citizens.

So from its earliest roots, the people of Nevada have been screwed by a few corrupt local politicians and an overly aggressive feral government.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

I'm not so much for states taking over Federal land as I would like an equitable way for a way o see it divided up and sold. Trouble is I cannot come up with an equatable way. All land is not of the same value. We should get top dollar but that would put land in the a few hands.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

I have no problem with some land being held by the FEDs to protect it. However it must be purchased in a legal way. The land grab has been going on for years.
However The Obama administration has taken it to a new level.
I understand where Bundy stands, he will lose but I understand.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

Smitty901 said:


> I have no problem with some land being held by the FEDs to protect it. However it must be purchased in a legal way. The land grab has been going on for years.
> However The Obama administration has taken it to a new level.
> I understand where Bundy stands, he will lose but I understand.


Yes there is something to be said for protecting National Parks but it is past time for the federal government to divest itself from holding massive amounts in the western states. It is to the point that there are too many opinions so nothing is done.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

PalmettoTree said:


> Yes there is something to be said for protecting National Parks but it is past time for the federal government to divest itself from holding massive amounts in the western states. It is to the point that there are too many opinions so nothing is done.


This is scary. You and I are agreeing far too much today.


----------



## ApexPredator (Aug 17, 2013)

Inor said:


> Absolutely, the western states particularly, should take back their land from the federal government. The Nevada Rancher situation caused me to do a bit of research on Nevada history this week just to try and see why the federal government (henceforth known as the "feral government") even has so much land in Nevada.
> 
> The land Nevada sits on became part of the United States in 1848 following the defeat of the Mexicans. However, Nevada did not become a U.S. Territory until 1861. Until that time, it truly had no government at all. In 1861, the feral government led by the bastard Lincoln, rushed making Nevada an official U.S. Territory to prevent Nevada from joining the Confederacy. The bastard Lincoln sent troops into Nevada to violently suppress any groups deemed sympathetic to the Confederacy AS WELL AS murdering the Mormons who were being pushed out of Missouri and Utah Territory at the time.
> 
> ...


Hum your mostly right, right enough just to mention Nevada petitioned the CSA for statehood first that resulted in very honorable no the CSA said they couldnt support Nevada because they were so far away and so therefore had no right to offer them statehood. Once that happened the Federalists in Nevada pushed for admittance into the Union and they asked for the Union to come and stabilize Nevada or in other words suppress their political rivals however because the union needed Nevadan silver the states official constitution gave them considerable power over what the FEDs could and could not regulate in Nevada now this has been mostly forgotten but its still in writing that's why Nevada has always had prostitution and gambling and the most relaxed guns laws now the state govt seems content to play the FEDs bitch.


----------



## Titan6 (May 19, 2013)

In total Agreement.. Federal Government has no business in the states affairs let alone controlling state lands....


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

national parks = financed and organized by feds

state parks = financed and organized by the state

the difference between the 2, wildlife reserves, feds look after them state dose not 

my views on this topic


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

pheniox17 said:


> national parks = financed and organized by feds
> 
> state parks = financed and organized by the state
> 
> ...


Have you seen the photos from South Chicago on the average weekend?!?! We have more freakin' wildlife than we need right now. I am sure we could easily put together a nonprofit to ship some of our wildlife over to you if you want...


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

Inor said:


> Have you seen the photos from South Chicago on the average weekend?!?! We have more freakin' wildlife than we need right now? I am sure we could easily put together a nonprofit to ship some of our wildlife over to you if you want...


Lol inor, that's the state government issuing hunting permits and the feds issue contracts for population control


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

More and more the Feds are taking control of private land with out buying it. They just have the EPA issue a ruling and your land is not yours anymore.
The rulings can be based on bad science on just made up BS it don't madder.
I posted the battle we had when the Feds tried to resend ditching that was done by The state on my land in 1951 to put in a highway.
They tried to Fine me 37,000 a day or force me to turn over the land to them. We only won because the people they sent to the hearings were idiots .
They just did not have their stuff in order even when the hearing office tried to help them out.
Their main argument was ,that Obama signed an Executive order that cancel What was called a permit back then to do the ditching.
The hearing office seemed ok with that. We had 100% proof that State took the easement and put the ditches in , Even though the EPA and Army corp of engineers tried to deny it.


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

Agreed..


----------



## john10001 (Mar 20, 2013)

Slippy said:


> Western lawmakers gather in Utah to talk federal land takeover. I agree and believe it is time. The [email protected]$ idiots in DC have screwed the pooch time and time again and its time that the states control the land within their borders.
> 
> Western lawmakers gather in Utah to talk federal land takeover | The Salt Lake Tribune


I can understand calls for the land to be privatised or taken over by the state especially after the unlawful actions of the BLM. I don't think this is the answer though. I think Rangeland and Common Land should remain uncontrolled by anyone and the long established rights of Cliven Bundy and others to freely graze cattle there as well as other rights in regards the land should not be impeded in any way.

The real problem is the American people are letting the corrupt government take over completely. Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton should be arrested and prosecuted. The BLM (a UN agency) should be abolished or kicked out America after they have been sued, and Obama should be impeached.

Unfortunately I don't think any of that is going to happen especially the latter because politically correct America is too afraid of the race card to impeach a black president despite his massive subversion, abuse of office, corruption, lies and treason.

The Bundy Ranch was the line in the sand I believe for Americans. Unfortunately I don't think it's over. The moment the militia step down the BLM will come back in force.

Obama and his administration seem desperate to start a multi-faceted civil war in America and also one externally too. Lets hope they don't achieve it.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

As an added point of interest, I heard on a financial show today that Federal lands have an estimated 135 TRILLION dollars (not a mistake, TRILLION not billion) worth of oil and natural gas on them, but no one is allowed to drill for it. Remember that the next time you hear Obama brag about how much more oil and natural gas is being produced since he came into office. This is being done not because of him but DESPITE him. I remember years ago that a major coal deposit was found in the State of Utah. Soon after Clinton declared that the land it was located on was now Federal land and no one would be permitted to mine for it. No one was payed for the land, by decree of the Federal government it became Federal property overnight.

If trilling on Federal land was closely controlled as to minimize the permanent damage to teh ground the Untied States would not only be totally energy self-dependent, we would become the largest exporter in the world. But there are people out there who actually believe that humans should not be allowed on that land period (except for "enlightened thinking" people like them of course). There are ways to use that land in a responsible manner to better the lives of everyone in the United States.


----------



## Hawaii Volcano Squad (Sep 25, 2013)

Let's all remember that the Second Amendment is a FEDERAL law that is applied to States as per the 14th Amendment.
If you live in a state that infringes Gun rights you WANT the Supreme Court to come in and order the State to follow the Constitution.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Most of it yes Feds have very little interest or business controlling the amount of land they do. It truly is the people land not theirs.


----------

