Rancher +Militia vs BLM,trouble on the range.(OT)

since all beef is apparently a welfare case unless it was raised in a giant feed lot.

I recall post-911 our congresspeople laid the f*#k down and raised their asses to George Bush. They were either for it, or lacked the moral courage to vote their conscience. Either way, they allowed the blood to flow and bear equal responsibility as the war hawks.

What is the legal ownership/proprietorship of this land again?

Federal lands are lands in the United States for which ownership is claimed by the U.S. federal government, pursuant to Article Four, section 3, clause 2 of the United States Constitution.[1] As of March 2012, out of the 2.27 billion acres in the country, about 28% of the total was owned by the Federal government according to the Interior Department.[2] The United States Supreme Court has upheld the broad powers of the federal government to deal with federal lands, for example having unanimously held in Kleppe v. New Mexico[3] that "the complete power that Congress has over federal lands under this clause necessarily includes the power to regulate and protect wildlife living there, state law notwithstanding".[1]

Federal land ownership began when the original 13 states ceded their “western”lands (between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River) to the central government between 1781 and 1802. Substan
tial land acquisition in North America via treaties and purchases began with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and culminated with the purchase of Alaska in 1867. In total, the federal government acquired 1.8 billion acres in North America.
The U.S. Constitution addresses the relationship of the federal government to lands. Article IV, § 3, Clause 2 — the Property Clause — gives Congress authority over federal property generally, and the Supreme Court has described Congress’s power to legislate under this Clause as “without limitation.” The equal footing doctrine (based on language within Article
IV, § 3, Clause 1), and found in state enabling acts, provides new states with equality to the original states in terms of constitutional rights, but has not been used successfully to force the divestment of federal lands. The policy question of whether to acquire more, or to dispose of any
or all, federal lands is left to Congress to decide.
The initial federal policy generally was to transfer ownership of many federal lands to private and state ownership. Congress enacted many laws granting lands and authorizing or directing sales or transfers, ultimately
disposing of 1.275 billion acres. However, from the earliest times, Congress also provided for reserving lands for federal purposes, and over time has reserved or withdrawn areas for such entities as national parks, national forests, and wildlife refuges.
The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 was enacted to remedy the deterioration of the range on the remaining public lands. This was the first direct authority for federal management of these lands, and implicitly began the shift toward ending disposals and retaining lands in federal ownership. In 1976, Congress formally declared that national policy was generally to retain the remaining lands in federal ownership inthe Federal Land Policy
and Management Act.
The “Sagebrush Rebellion” was a collection of unsuccessful state and local
efforts, beginning in 1978, to assert title to federal lands or force their divestiture. It also included efforts by the Reagan Administration and in Congress to divest ofmany federal lands, which
also proved unsuccessful

What is the legal ownership/proprietorship of this land again? When you drive down the road, do you do so on "welfare roads"? Just curious…

Didya' know that, on average, each rural folk has more representation in the federal government than each city folk does?

"Down with them rural folk! Thuyre Diffrent!"

and they sure as hell LIED about protecting some desert tortoise...

The whole thing is deep in issues that are not really talked about.