What can we learn from the Bundy ranch situation?

[JRuby]

Nye County Nevada is a little closer to the situation than any of us. Here's what the County Commissioners recently approved:

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/nye-county-nevada-votes-give-feds-boot/#AS1bep530F32i5L7.01

And here are the two resolutions:

<broken link removed>

It will definitely be worth watching - even if it is voted into law I wonder how far up the judicial system it will go before it is ruled null and void for lack of a better term.

 

[1337BaldEagle]

Again...

This isn't about if Bundy is right, wrong or indifferent.

It is about whether the Fed may dictate how, when, and in what manner your rights apply. It's about not letting the Fed suppress the cries of the people. It's about the Fed building a police force instead of using local law enforcement to enforce law.

It's about the Fed, not about Bundy.

I couldn't give two bubblegums about Bundy and his outstanding grazing expenses.

When I start to give a bubblegum is when a Federal Agency actively starts to restrict the voice of the people or when they lay down actions that create a precedent that can be used to restrict the voice of the people.

Allowing them to corral protesters restricts the time, location, visibility, and comfort of the people protesting an agency that has no representation of the people.

This is why Militia showed up, not because of Bundy and his stupid outstanding debt.

Eagle

 

[Stomper]

I don't know how or why some people here so so ignorant, crazy, obtuse or whatever - maybe they're friendless underachievers and like to fallaciously argue moot premises on the internet from their parents basement - I don't know.

It's because their ideology believes that the ends justify means. Ridicule and mindless debate to bog things down to the point that everyone forgets what/who they're angry at, then attempt to deflect it into a non-sequitur is one of the tools/means they employ.

They are obsolete and just don't know it, yet.

 

[fd15k]

Again...

This isn't about if Bundy is right, wrong or indifferent.

It is about whether the Fed may dictate how, when, and in what manner your rights apply. It's about not letting the Fed suppress the cries of the people. It's about the Fed building a police force instead of using local law enforcement to enforce law.

It's about the Fed, not about Bundy.

I couldn't give two bubblegums about Bundy and his outstanding grazing expenses.

When I start to give a bubblegum is when a Federal Agency actively starts to restrict the voice of the people or when they lay down actions that create a precedent that can be used to restrict the voice of the people.

Allowing them to corral protesters restricts the time, location, visibility, and comfort of the people protesting an agency that has no representation of the people.

This is why Militia showed up, not because of Bundy and his stupid outstanding debt.

Eagle

Okay, so I asked that question above. Here is what wikipedia states :

The BLM was tasked with environmental assessment[4] and various enforcement issues regarding the cattle trespass injunctions. During March–April 2014, it closed some areas of government lands during the planning for roundup of the trespass cattle owned by Bundy. In early April, "just before the roundup got underway, a survey conducted by helicopter counted 908 head of cattle scattered across roughly 1,200 square miles of remote mountains and desert managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service."[32]

In late March, Bundy sent letters entitled "Range War Emergency Notice and Demand for Protection" to county, state, and federal officials.[39] In media interviews, Bundy used the language of the sovereign citizen movement as a rallying call, beckoning support from members of the Oath Keepers, the White Mountain Militia, and the Praetorian Guard.[40] In early April, armed individuals and private militia members from across the United States joined peaceful protesters against the trespass cattle roundup in what has become known punningly as the Battle of Bunkerville.[14][41] BLM enforcement agents were dispatched in response to what were seen as threatening statements by Bundy, such as calling the events a "range war".[42] There was no armed battle.

With many roads closed to ensure safety during the cattle removal, designated First Amendment areas where protesters could safely congregate or exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble were marked with signs and orange plastic fences adjacent to the road.[43][44] On April 8, 2014, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval issued a statement calling for the removal of the First Amendment restrictions he described as offensive.[45] After stating that peaceful protests had crossed into illegal activity, the federal agencies allowed protesters to go anywhere on the public land as long as they were peaceful.[46]

Is that accurate ?

 

[Riot]

So when the government restricts your God-given rights to a small zone, you don't think that is tyrannical?

Yes, I think it was tyrannical

Do you not agree that the BLM is government and all it's power is through the consent of the people?

Of course...

If you agree, then why would you not agree that the founding fathers added the second amendment for exactly the right of that civilian sniper to scope the out of control government which has it's own guns trained on innocent people it serves?

IMO, that civilian sniper WAS A HERO and nowhere near the tyrants which the BLM snipers are.

It invited violence, something I do not advocate. No where (either in the constitution or otherwise) it is okay to point a loaded firearm at anyone that is not a deadly threat. The man scoping out the BLM on the overpass with a rifle is wrong...PERIOD.

Let me be clear...

This is okay...


This is not...


This only hurts our cause. Why give the left ammunition to use? This helps labels them as the gun-happy, violent "terrorists" that the media makes them out to be.

 

[BigStick]

Dude, you have to stop quoting wikipedia as a source if you want anyone to take you seriously.

 

[fd15k]

Dude, you have to stop quoting wikipedia as a source if you want anyone to take you seriously.

In the paragraphs I have copy-pasted there is almost a dozen links to external sources where the statements originate from, including BLM, WashingtonPost and FoxNews. Though that is obvious to any reasonable person.

 

[Martini_Up]

You forget.... BLM had snipers pointing their rifles at civilians so they were a deadly threat and therefore it was OK for the civilians to point their own back in response.

Let me be clear, the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting. And if helping 'our cause' is to hide the fact I exercise my rights to the fullest extent of the law than I want no part of it.

 

[JRuby]

You forget.... BLM had snipers pointing their rifles at civilians so they were a deadly threat

Where is your evidence?

 

[1337BaldEagle]

Is that accurate ?

Simply, no. Not all of it.

Only after the escalation of force on April 10th did you see Militia start to show up.

Further, his "sovereign citizen" comments are hardly a solicitation for Militia. In no way was he asking for them specifically.

If the BLM had simply went to his ranch with local law enforcement and arrested Bundy in the beginning for either 1) his refusal to pay grazing fees or 2) allowing his cattle to graze on protected tortuous habitat we wouldn't have seen the escalation of force, or the gathering of Militia.


As for why Bundy is pissed off that's a whole other debate. One I am unwilling to debate but one that I am marginally sympathetic to Bundy's case.

 

[fd15k]

Simply, no. Not all of it.

Only after the escalation of force on April 10th did you see Militia start to show up.

Cool, I will check on that later.

Further, his "sovereign citizen" comments are hardly a solicitation for Militia. In no way was he asking for them specifically.

Will check on that as well.

If the BLM had simply went to his ranch with local law enforcement and arrested Bundy in the beginning for either 1) his refusal to pay grazing fees or 2) allowing his cattle to graze on protected tortuous habitat we wouldn't have seen the escalation of force, or the gathering of Militia.

There was no court order for Bundy's arrest (that is why he wasn't arrested), but there was an order for Bundy to remove his cattle within 45 days and there was an order authorizing US government to seize Bundy's cattle should it continue trespass. Are you disputing BLM's authority to remove the cattle from administered lands ?

 

[1337BaldEagle]

There was no court order for Bundy's arrest (that is why he wasn't arrested), but there was an order for Bundy to remove his cattle within 45 days

If BLM went back to court sighting "he hadn't complied with removing his cattle within 45 days" and that as a result "potential habitat was actively being destroyed" do you really think that any reasonable judge would not issue a warrant for arrest?

Are you disputing BLM's authority to remove the cattle from administered lands ?

Not in this argument. I think the BLM should have dealt with the source of the "problem" then dealt with the cattle. Further, they ought to let protesters express their opinions in opposition to the collection of cattle in any manner that is traditionally held as legal. They ought not have the authority to tell people they may only protest in a certain manner.

Instead they ought to (again) allow local law enforcement to enforce all relevant laws. If protesting turns into letting the air out of tires, laying down spikes on roads where BLM is likely to travel, blocking of BLM vehicles, then have law enforcement deal with these issues.

But to tell the public they can't be there only because they don't want protesters to protest is asking for Militia. It's spitting in the faces of the people who agree with Bundy.

Simply BLM didn't need to handle the situation in the manner they did.


Eagle

 

[Stomper]

Disputing combat kitted paramilitary squads to "round up" Cattle, pushing ladies to the asphalt, and tazering people who will not be herded into "1st amendment zones".

 

[1337BaldEagle]

Where is your evidence?

<broken link removed>

None of the family members on the road were armed, but 11 <broken link removed> vehicles each with two agents arrived and surrounded him as he began filming the cattle, Paul Joseph Watson said at [URL='http://www.infowars.com/federal-snipers-train-guns-on-family-for-filming-cattle/']Infowars

.

"They also had four snipers on the hill above us all trained on us. We were doing nothing besides filming the area," Ryan added.

Bundy also said federal agents told them they had no First Amendment rights except in the areas so marked.


"The BLM has established two fenced areas near the City of Mesquite, that they have designated as free speech areas for members of the public to express their opinions," the Progress said.

Officers ordered family members to leave immediately, but Bundy apparently didn't obey fast enough and was reportedly set upon by agents.

[/URL]

 

[fd15k]

If BLM went back to court sighting "he hadn't complied with removing his cattle within 45 days" and that as a result "potential habitat was actively being destroyed" do you really think that any reasonable judge would not issue a warrant for arrest?

The order was more extensive. Judge authorized BLM ahead of time to remove the cattle should Bundy refuse, and extended the order to any possible future trespass. I believe BLM lacks authority to arrest Bundy outside their limited jurisdiction.

Not in this argument. I think the BLM should have dealt with the source of the "problem" then dealt with the cattle.

Good. That establishes some baseline. As for the source of the problem, I stated above. Fee collection vs cattle removal are two separate issues and two different avenues of enforcement.

Further, they ought to let protesters express their opinions in opposition to the collection of cattle in any manner that is traditionally held as legal. They ought not have the authority to tell people they may only protest in a certain manner.

I think this is the main point of contention. You suggest that citizens have unlimited right to interfere with government business without place and time restrictions. Not only that is contrary to the established law, but it is also is at least impractical and potentially dangerous.

 

[1337BaldEagle]

Fee collection vs cattle removal are two separate issues and two different avenues of enforcement.

No but destruction of protected habitat due to gross negligence is actually criminal. If it isn't please tell my how it isn't, and how BLM wouldn't be serving a justice by getting local law to arrest him.

You suggest that citizens have unlimited right to interfere with government business without place and time restrictions.

Um, where do you see that? Because I can point to posts where that is clearly NOT a true assertion. Spesifical I will quote myself here:

Instead they ought to (again) allow local law enforcement to enforce all relevant laws. If protesting turns into letting the air out of tires, laying down spikes on roads where BLM is likely to travel, blocking of BLM vehicles, then have law enforcement deal with these issues.

I just don't think a Fed Agency should/can justly tell people they can't protest. No federal agency should be able to arbitrarily make up rules pertaining to rights.

I would love for you to show me how this is

contrary to the established law, but it is also is at least impractical and potentially dangerous.

Eagle

 

[Stomper]

So citizens shouldn't interfere with "government business" if they're say.... rounding up the Jews like in the past (and was "legal"), or "bitter clingers" in the maybe not so distant future?

Conundrums, conundrums, conundrums....

 

[Jamie6.5]

The order was more extensive. Judge authorized BLM ahead of time to remove the cattle should Bundy refuse, and extended the order to any possible future trespass. I believe BLM lacks authority to arrest Bundy outside their limited jurisdiction.

Then what justification did they have for arresting/taking into custody Bundy's son when he was standing on a highway right-of-way?

<broken link removed>

While he was filming the landscape and talking on the phone?
That was on the 6th of April, shortly after the feds instituted the "1st Amendment zone" order, that involved fenced off areas.

 

[Riot]

Good. That establishes some baseline. As for the source of the problem, I stated above. Fee collection vs cattle removal are two separate issues and two different avenues of enforcement.

The BLM didn't just try to remove the cattle...they confiscated the cattle and attempted to auction them off- and they used force against anyone that tried to stop them.

What would have been wrong with the BLM from just securing the property and holding on to the cattle until after the fees were paid? No harm would have been done to the cattle and if they were really trespassing then why was this not an avenue- versus using cattle cars, hundreds of agents and a helicopter to intimidate, confiscate and flex on a rancher?

You don't have an answer for this- do you? The fact of the matter is, both the Bundy's and the BLM could have handled the situation better. But we expect better from our government. Just because they have the guns, funds and resources to put the boot down on every citizen that questions their authority doesn't give them the right to and they are accountable to the American people...that is what the fight is about.

Not fees

Not trespassing cattle

Not a tortoise


It's about an over-reaching, tyranical government that used its might on a rancher that was doing nothing more than trying to live his life the way he has always lived it.

Times changed and he refused to change with it. That doesn't give the government the power to put a gun to his head and force the matter now does it? It doesn't in my book.

 

[Jamie6.5]

If ANYONE would like to know the extent to which the BLM has gone, to steal the rights of homesteaders and aboriginal people in this area of Nevada, just read this little gem:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/william-norman-grigg/bunkerville-nevada/

After spending several years in prison, that supposed terrorist, Clifford Dann, was allowed to return to the tiny, ramshackle homestead he shares with his 82-year-old sister, Carrie, who is the same age their elder sister Mary was when she died in an accident while repairing a fence in 2005.

Like the Cliven Bundy family, their distant Nevada neighbors, the Dann family spent two decades fighting in federal courts to defend their property against the depredations of the federal government. As members of the Western Shoshone nation, the Dann family had inherited land that was protected by the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley and the U.S. Constitution – parchment barricades against aggression that were quickly reduced to ashes by the flame of elite ambitions.

The illegal activities and injustices by the feds has apparently been going on around Bunkerville for far longer than any of us realized.