DOES BUNDY ACTUALLY OWN THE LANDS FEDS TRIED TO SEIZE?

Submitted by: Donald Hank Author

Our thanks to John T in the UK for this message:

Hello Don, In the UK if someone uses land and bars others from using it he becomes the owner of that land by "adverse possession". I know because I used the process about 11 years ago. There are probably similar judges rulings in the US. [YES. Don]
A qualification to what I have stated is that if the land was previously owned by a Elemosenary Charity the time is 20 years. If owned by the state it is 50 years. [In Nevada, it seems to be only 5 years according to the last-linked article]

American law is based on English common law, from which this notion of adverse possession derives. Constitutional lawyers use common law to argue cases.

More relevant to the Bundys is homesteading law and the stock raising homesteading law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts

The Stock-Raising Homestead Act of 1916

Main article: Stock-Raising Homestead Act

In 1916, the Stock-Raising Homestead Act was passed for settlers seeking 640 acres (260 ha) of public land for ranching purposes.^[13]

^{Of course, the Bundys are using 600,000 acres, beyond the legal limit for homesteading, but in their case, the adverse possession law would no doubt apply.
Here is a summary of Nevada's adverse possession law:}
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/nevada-law/nevada-adverse-possession-laws.html
Certainly whatever law applied in the late 1800s would have been grandfathered for the Bundys particularly since they had been paying for land use until recently.
^{Don Hank}