Not sure about Navada but most states have laws in regaurd to land that has been historicly used by someone . If their hadn't been such a outcry this would have been another Waco or Ruby ridge and the Feds would have swore they never fired a shot . There is a difrance between Citizen and Subject .
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Armed protest against government not a civil rights issue?
- Thread starter Dreaming100Straight
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Based on what little I know, the owner of the cattle was allowed to graze his cattle way longer than he should have, he got by with it for 20 years, the BLM went way beyond what was required to try to get them off or him to pay. You can graze cattle on federal lands in many places but you have to pay for it either in $$ or work depending upon the agreement. The whole idea of a 1st Amendment free zone nauseates me, at the very least it was a horrible choice of wording. Had they said, sure protest all you want but you can't go beyond this point for security reasons, fine. If you think you can protest just anyplace try to enter the grounds of the whitehouse or enter a military base and see how that goes. Mr. Bundy perpetuated the issue for many years, and the BLM finally reached their limit after winning every court battle.
Here's a civil rights issue for those of you supporting the Bundy's.
You're more than welcome to give up any interest in the revenue generated from these grazing fees. Can you tell me why I should have to as well?
If we ALL own that land, and I can't use it living way the heck out here, instead of there, why shouldn't my stake in it generate some income to defray some of the taxes I would otherwise have to pay?
You're more than welcome to give up any interest in the revenue generated from these grazing fees. Can you tell me why I should have to as well?
If we ALL own that land, and I can't use it living way the heck out here, instead of there, why shouldn't my stake in it generate some income to defray some of the taxes I would otherwise have to pay?
totalloser
New member
Expecting concrete proof from an opinion on an internet forum is asinine. I am entitled to my opinion, and though "staff" can boot me, I still have no such obligation. That is a matter for those actually involved. Such a standard is also asinine. The vast bulk of what is on a site like this from one end to the other is not backed by such a standard, and thus should be questioned. People form their own opinions, and I have stated mine.
Considering the behavior of the BLM, I choose to believe the claims of the family. I also tend to believe the judgement of thousands of *vets, police and fire* that took up arms. Precious few of the folks who weigh in on this issue even qualify involvement in such a group. I, BTW have served, and do qualify though I have no association with this group.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
We have all watched situations like this pan out in the past (or most of us) and seen the feds kill a bunch of people quite deliberately. And then lose wrongful death suits in court after the fact. This sets a standard by which I measure the clumsy, heavy handed actions of large Federal conflicts.
So who was on this man's side? Well, the governor of his state, the sheriff of his county, and a civilian militia willing to fight and die that happens to be made up of 100% peace officers and vets. The feds have a politician with an agenda to fatten his wallet, a federal agency, and a federal court. Had this gotten nasty, it would have fallen to local courts to be judged by a jury of this rancher's peers. And apparently he had no fear of this.
Considering the behavior of the BLM, I choose to believe the claims of the family. I also tend to believe the judgement of thousands of *vets, police and fire* that took up arms. Precious few of the folks who weigh in on this issue even qualify involvement in such a group. I, BTW have served, and do qualify though I have no association with this group.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
We have all watched situations like this pan out in the past (or most of us) and seen the feds kill a bunch of people quite deliberately. And then lose wrongful death suits in court after the fact. This sets a standard by which I measure the clumsy, heavy handed actions of large Federal conflicts.
So who was on this man's side? Well, the governor of his state, the sheriff of his county, and a civilian militia willing to fight and die that happens to be made up of 100% peace officers and vets. The feds have a politician with an agenda to fatten his wallet, a federal agency, and a federal court. Had this gotten nasty, it would have fallen to local courts to be judged by a jury of this rancher's peers. And apparently he had no fear of this.
The Feds also have a treaty from 1848. Federal law from both long before and long after.
If I'm not mistaken, had this gotten nasty, it would have ended up in Federal Court, not a State court. Any lawyers like to weigh in? Violent crime on a federal agent in performance of their duties- State court or Federal?
If I'm not mistaken, had this gotten nasty, it would have ended up in Federal Court, not a State court. Any lawyers like to weigh in? Violent crime on a federal agent in performance of their duties- State court or Federal?
I'm not sure they were "free speech zones" so much as they were security precautions. Bundy made threats. I really wouldn't want a bunch of protesters getting in the middle of an armed confrontation.No doubt the 'free speech zones' were a violation of rights.
That said, Bundy's had his day in court. Several times. Now that the BLM wants to put their foot down, his final recourse is to scream about government oppression so loudly the Drudge/Blaze/Infowars axis declares him Mr. Heartland Hero.
Bundy, his family, and his supporters have been very vocal. I've heard all sorts of "they've gone too far" and "take our country back" slogans from them, but I've yet to hear any sort of specific justification.
Jed and the Bait Store Brigade showing up with guns didn't resolve this situation. Don't expect the government to back down on this.
If there is one tangential takeaway from this whole foolishness, it's this: another Ruby Ridge is really unlikely given the seeming omniscience of mobile devices and social media.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Not my responsibility to do so. The feds accepted it for decades, the family makes this claim, and have grazed their cattle there for a century."
Not one bit of which establishes that there is, or was, any contract established that was, or was meant to be, in perpetuity.
"Not sure about Navada but most states have laws in regaurd to land that has been historicly used by someone."
This is Federal land, not state land.
"Expecting concrete proof from an opinion on an internet forum is asinine."
No one is asking you for concrete proof, only data that supports your claims.
For example, you claimed that Bundy's contract with BLM was "in perpetuity." Such a claim would be more than easy to either substantiate or refute, as it would have (were it true) been a large part of at least one, if not both, court actions.
Based on the wording in your post, you didn't state that as your opinion, you stated it as fact. So, yes, it is your responsibility to bring something to the table when you make such claims.
If, however, it is your opinion that the family had such an agreement with the government, it's up to you to identify it as opinion, not fact.
Not one bit of which establishes that there is, or was, any contract established that was, or was meant to be, in perpetuity.
"Not sure about Navada but most states have laws in regaurd to land that has been historicly used by someone."
This is Federal land, not state land.
"Expecting concrete proof from an opinion on an internet forum is asinine."
No one is asking you for concrete proof, only data that supports your claims.
For example, you claimed that Bundy's contract with BLM was "in perpetuity." Such a claim would be more than easy to either substantiate or refute, as it would have (were it true) been a large part of at least one, if not both, court actions.
Based on the wording in your post, you didn't state that as your opinion, you stated it as fact. So, yes, it is your responsibility to bring something to the table when you make such claims.
If, however, it is your opinion that the family had such an agreement with the government, it's up to you to identify it as opinion, not fact.
Last edited:
Bundy's had his day in court. Several times. Now that the BLM wants to put their foot down, his final recourse is to scream about government oppression so loudly the Drudge/Blaze/Infowars axis declares him Mr. Heartland Hero.
Oh, even The Blaze is having a hard time supporting Mr Bundy.
They were unable to tar and feather Reid, even with their ideological bent. Unable to make any sort of case that Bundy has any right to the land. They were even hesitant to label the actions of government as over reacting based on the statements and comments from Bundy.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Bundy's had his day in court. Several times. Now that the BLM wants to put their foot down, his final recourse is to scream about government oppression so loudly the Drudge/Blaze/Infowars axis declares him Mr. Heartland Hero."
I'm certainly not in his camp, especially not after he declared that he'd start a range war.
People are screaming bloody murder about the Federal response....
I have to ask, given some of the comments he's made in the past that point to a very high liklihood of him resorting to violence, what the hell does anyone think the response would, or should, be?
I'm certainly not in his camp, especially not after he declared that he'd start a range war.
People are screaming bloody murder about the Federal response....
I have to ask, given some of the comments he's made in the past that point to a very high liklihood of him resorting to violence, what the hell does anyone think the response would, or should, be?
totalloser
New member
Read your Constitution. Every citizen has the *right* to a trial by a jury of *his peers*. And a side note: A federal judge court order is not what most would consider due process. All it takes is walking in to the right judge and getting an order signed.
Here's how *reasonable* debt collection is done: Take it to local courts and win, place liens and garnish wages.
Here's how thuggery debt collection is done: Get some random judge appointed by a random politician to take personal property without due process.
I don't truly know if this man owes, but it appears there is credible doubt. And there is the fact that the BLM circumnavigated process which is VERY suspicious. This is like having the SWAT team kick in your door for parking tickets.
What galvanized my opposition to this behavior predated my knowledge of the legalities involved. Mass graves are politically, historically, and socially unacceptable. Even for cattle. The BLM no-fly zone was a weak and stupid way to hide it once they realized their folly since satellite imagery is readily available. This was a disgusting move, and bogglingly insensitive to history. Again I cited reference with the link.
I have spent enough time here though. I have little respect to those who violate their oath the the Constitution. This oath is morally irrevocable. I dropped a link citing significant reference and have better things to do than break it all down. Besides, much of the legal issues are over my head.
I have seen nothing here to change my mind, but enjoyed the discourse, and embrace joy that the situation in question did not end with dead people.
Here's how *reasonable* debt collection is done: Take it to local courts and win, place liens and garnish wages.
Here's how thuggery debt collection is done: Get some random judge appointed by a random politician to take personal property without due process.
I don't truly know if this man owes, but it appears there is credible doubt. And there is the fact that the BLM circumnavigated process which is VERY suspicious. This is like having the SWAT team kick in your door for parking tickets.
What galvanized my opposition to this behavior predated my knowledge of the legalities involved. Mass graves are politically, historically, and socially unacceptable. Even for cattle. The BLM no-fly zone was a weak and stupid way to hide it once they realized their folly since satellite imagery is readily available. This was a disgusting move, and bogglingly insensitive to history. Again I cited reference with the link.
I have spent enough time here though. I have little respect to those who violate their oath the the Constitution. This oath is morally irrevocable. I dropped a link citing significant reference and have better things to do than break it all down. Besides, much of the legal issues are over my head.
I have seen nothing here to change my mind, but enjoyed the discourse, and embrace joy that the situation in question did not end with dead people.
Last edited:
Dreaming100Straight
New member
Read your Constitution. Every citizen has the *right* to a trial by a jury of *his peers*. Show us where he was denied such a right. In which court proceeding did he request trial by jury? And a side note: A federal judge court order is not what most would consider due process. All it takes is walking in to the right judge and getting an order signed. What court order are you talking about? An order issued following trial and entry of judgment? What?
Here's how *reasonable* debt collection is done: Take it to local courts and win, place liens and garnish wages.
Here's how thuggery debt collection is done: Get some random judge appointed by a random politician to take personal property without due process. The cattle were being removed because they were a continuing trespass in violation of court injunctions. Hence this was more than collection of past debts, though there was a plan to sell the cattle to pay for some of the debt.
I don't truly know if this man owes, but it appears there is credible doubt. And there is the fact that the BLM circumnavigated process which is VERY suspicious. This is like having the SWAT team kick in your door for parking tickets. What process did BLM circumvent and why should Bundy be permitted to continue to graze for free why other Nevada cattlemen paid fees? This isn't at all like having SWAT kick in your door, but like having an illegally parked towed from public property.
__________________
Here's how *reasonable* debt collection is done: Take it to local courts and win, place liens and garnish wages.
Here's how thuggery debt collection is done: Get some random judge appointed by a random politician to take personal property without due process. The cattle were being removed because they were a continuing trespass in violation of court injunctions. Hence this was more than collection of past debts, though there was a plan to sell the cattle to pay for some of the debt.
I don't truly know if this man owes, but it appears there is credible doubt. And there is the fact that the BLM circumnavigated process which is VERY suspicious. This is like having the SWAT team kick in your door for parking tickets. What process did BLM circumvent and why should Bundy be permitted to continue to graze for free why other Nevada cattlemen paid fees? This isn't at all like having SWAT kick in your door, but like having an illegally parked towed from public property.
__________________
You're misrepresenting the situation. This wasn't a one-off verdict from a random judge. It's been going through the courts since 1993.Here's how thuggery debt collection is done: Get some random judge appointed by a random politician to take personal property without due process.
Sure it is, if I racked up over $1 million in parking tickets, repeatedly refused to pay them, then made very public statements implying that I would resort to violence if the government tried to collect.This is like having the SWAT team kick in your door for parking tickets.
Bundy doesn't appear to have the ancestral rights to public land he claims to. In fact, he seems to have very little knowledge of the legal issues surrounding his claims. His response has been to scream slogans loud enough that a few folks take interest and paint him us as a (very dubious) hero.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
And an unsupported opinion deserves being ignored.totalloser said:Expecting concrete proof from an opinion on an internet forum is asinine. I am entitled to my opinion,...
I guess you've never read the Constitution, or at least don't understand it. The 6th Amendment provides (emphasis added):totalloser said:Read your Constitution. Every citizen has the *right* to a trial by a jury of *his peers*....
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury...
The 7th Amendment provides (emphasis added):
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,...
The right to a jury in a civil case is limited in a number of ways, for example:
...The Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial in most civil suits that are heard in federal court. However, before the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial attaches, a lawsuit must satisfy four threshold requirements. First, it must assert a claim that would have triggered the right to a jury trial under the English common law of 1791, when the Seventh Amendment was ratified. If a lawsuit asserts a claim that is sufficiently analogous to an eighteenth-century English common-law claim, a litigant may still invoke the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial even though the claim was not expressly recognized in 1791 (Markman v. Westview Instruments, 517 U.S.370, 116 S. Ct. 1384, 134 L. Ed. 2d 577 [1996])....
....
...a lawsuit must assert a claim that is essentially legal in nature before the Seventh Amendment applies. There is no right to a jury trial in civil actions involving claims that are essentially equitable in nature (Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 107 S. Ct. 1831, 95 L. Ed. 2d 365 [1987]). Lawsuits that seek injunctions, Specific Performance, and other types of nonmonetary remedies are traditionally treated as equitable claims. Lawsuits that seek money damages, conversely, are traditionally treated as legal claims. However, these traditional categories of law and Equity are not always neatly separated...
There is nothing in the Constitution that entitles anyone to a jury of his peers. One is entitled to an impartial jury (Constitution, Sixth Amendment); but you have no grounds upon which to insist that members of your jury be "your peers", i. e., from the of the same societal group, age, status, background or education, etc., as you.
(The notion of a "jury of one's peers" comes from Magna Carta and was indeed intended to refer to being judged by one's equals. Magna Carta was forced on King John by the feudal barons to protect their interests. Their first concern was that they be judged only by nobles of similar rank. And indeed until relatively recently, a British noble charged with a crime was entitled to be tried in the House of Lords. The last trial in the House of Lords was in 1935, and the trial jurisdiction of the House of Lords was abolished in 1948.)
Nor do we know that the civil litigation in which Bundy was involve was a type in which he was entitled to a jury, nor do we know that he didn't have a jury, nor do we know that he didn't waive a jury, nor do we know if his case wasn't decided against him on a matter of law (in which there was no dispute as to the fact).
I live near there so to speak. Big topic here.
It is my understanding that it is an issue of beneficial use which is as old as the country. The rancher's family has been putting this land to beneficial use for 140 years. The government wants the land so they have squeezed all but this guy out, who is making a stand. After some cattle confiscation and some tasering by the feds, they decided to back down for now.
You can bet it isn't over!
Mel
It is my understanding that it is an issue of beneficial use which is as old as the country. The rancher's family has been putting this land to beneficial use for 140 years. The government wants the land so they have squeezed all but this guy out, who is making a stand. After some cattle confiscation and some tasering by the feds, they decided to back down for now.
You can bet it isn't over!
Mel
It is my understanding that it is an issue of beneficial use which is as old as the country.
A lot of us here think it's failure to pay for services rendered.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Read your Constitution. Every citizen has the *right* to a trial by a jury of *his peers*."
I have read the Constitution.
Furthermore, I UNDERSTAND what is in the Constitution, and more importantly, what is NOT in the Constitution.
The word peer NEVER appears in the US Constitution.
I see that Frank has succinctly explained the actual wording and conceptual application of the Constitution to you. I urge you to read his post carefully.
Everything that follows your blatantly incorrect opening is equally flawed on its face and by application. In other words, and with all due respect, you don't have clue one about what you're talking.
I have read the Constitution.
Furthermore, I UNDERSTAND what is in the Constitution, and more importantly, what is NOT in the Constitution.
The word peer NEVER appears in the US Constitution.
I see that Frank has succinctly explained the actual wording and conceptual application of the Constitution to you. I urge you to read his post carefully.
Everything that follows your blatantly incorrect opening is equally flawed on its face and by application. In other words, and with all due respect, you don't have clue one about what you're talking.
I suppose this could be an example of government overreach, militarization of law enforcement or misapplication of the law. However, I fail to see how it is a Second Amendment issue.
I noted on the news several militia folks were sporting moral patches with molon labe, images of AR 15s or actual copies of the second amendment text. I couldn’t help but think what some casual observer might think of firearms enthusiast after seeing some of the news reports. As a nation of laws it seems this issue should be fought in the courts with words and not on the open range with bullets.
While I do understand and share the frustration that many feel we need to be careful what cause we hitch our wagon to.
I noted on the news several militia folks were sporting moral patches with molon labe, images of AR 15s or actual copies of the second amendment text. I couldn’t help but think what some casual observer might think of firearms enthusiast after seeing some of the news reports. As a nation of laws it seems this issue should be fought in the courts with words and not on the open range with bullets.
While I do understand and share the frustration that many feel we need to be careful what cause we hitch our wagon to.
Dreaming100Straight
New member
I noted on the news several militia folks were sporting moral patches with molon labe, images of AR 15s or actual copies of the second amendment text. I couldn’t help but think what some casual observer might think of firearms enthusiast after seeing some of the news reports. As a nation of laws it seems this issue should be fought in the courts with words and not on the open range with bullets.
While you only noted moral patches on the news, I saw several Bundy supporters with holstered side arms. One militia member declined to state whether or not he was armed. People on one side or the other of gun rights may not be affected by the images of armed militia members. but a lot of people on the fence are going to be pushed into the anti camp by those pictures.
That's why I'm really relieved this didn't come to blows. I don't know who these "militias" are. Have they trained together? Done any drills? Heck, do they even know how to work those guns they slung over their shoulders to go yell at The Man?I couldn’t help but think what some casual observer might think of firearms enthusiast after seeing some of the news reports.
There may come a time to draw a line and rattle sabers over it, but this isn't it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.