Armed protest against government not a civil rights issue?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's funny you mention water rights. I'm talking to a lawyer from Nevada who thinks grazing rights should be treated like water rights. Before anyone jumps on me, intending to get him, he realizes they currently aren't. Just thinks they should be.

Of course that's a far cry from establishing that renting BLM land somehow conveys these water and grazing rights after the rental is over. Or that changing the terms of this rental from one rental period to another is a taking. But that led me to A Justice Department blurb about Federal Reserved Water Rights.

This seems to at least imply that some level of water rights for BLM land is held by the BLM (in trust for The People via Congress because it's public not private property)

Is anyone in here able to expand on that?
 
I doubt it.

How often do we see discussions about lawsuits against this state, or that federal statute, and one of the aspects of that discussion is getting "clean" plaintiffs. To bring these suits they want Mother Theresa, preferably right after she gets out of the hospital convalescing from the most vicious mugging ever seen in recorded history.

A guy who's 20 years delinquent is not a clean plaintiff.
 
If I may.

Although many may not realize it, ranching in the west is becoming more and more difficult. Most of the western U.S is empty space, publicly owned land no one wanted 150 years ago. Feeding just one cow/calf pair (or six sheep) requires 100's of acres. Arid, dry, empty space.

I get the feeling that the actual rub and pain being felt by western ranches isn't truly being understood.

It is happening all over the western states. Grazing leases are being revoked, shortened, transferred, and made into monuments and de-facto wilderness.

Grazing is losing to endangered and threatened plants, and animals. Wild horse (feral) groups are demanding cows leave the grass for the horses. Oil and gas exploration is becoming priority. Re-introduced predators are taking their share of ranchers cows. and most importantly, 300 million people are beginning to use the arid western grazing pasture for recreation, leaving the cities en mass on the weekends.

The ranches are feeling the pain. This incident is representative of thousands of battles being fought all through the west.

A way of life is being threatened, human nature is to push back once the pain gets unbearable.

Unless someone has lived the daily battle, it is hard to completely understand. Especially from a recliner in a city flat watching CNN or FOX!
 
I went to high school in a rural NV town with several large cattle ranches. The owners of the ranches OWNED the land their cattle grazed on. If anyone had a beef (couldn't help it) against Bundy it should be all the ranchers NOT getting grazing on the tax payers dime.

That being said, the worst part about this whole thing (other than defrauding the public and defying court orders) is the fuel these armed extremists give to the 'antis.'

I'll quote my earlier post:
Whether the self described militia members present at Bundy's ranch are 'yahoos' would have to be judged on an individual basis. What is overwhelmingly clear is that the public at large views them as armed extremists and they are not doing those of us trying to protect the 2a and promote safe responsible gun ownership any favors.
Click to expand...


Edit--BTW that's why the ranchers I knew grew alalfa and grass hay on the fields not being grazed that year (they alternated, feed the cattle and build up the soil! It's called sustainable responsible ranching. I've hiked through wilderness all over the west and those who think the cattle don't hurt anything clearly have not!
 
Last edited:
Tom Servo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tom, I think another Ruby Ridge, or at least the incident early on which happened on the trail which started the standoff could happen again. The issue with the people showing up to demonstrate, protest, whatever, is that it can escalate an incident sometimes as well.

So, lets say the is another stand off somewhere, and these "militia's" or protesters, etc, are on social media organizing and arriving there, armed and walking around. It *may* cause those managing the scene to use more force to end something quickly without several days/weeks long negotiations. More like a rush to resolve it one way or another before social media folks can mobilize.
 
I don't have a lot of sympathy for Bundy, but I do think the armed federal action was ridiculous. As someone commented a few posts above, if this were really about unpaid grazing fees (in other words, "money"), all the Feds would need to do is get a court order attaching Bundy's assets: lien on any real property he actually owns, and seize his bank accounts.

But, for whatever reason(s), the .gov didn't want a clean, administrative action (which should have been a slam dunk, considering the lengthy court history), they wanted to put on a massive show of force. And by so choosing, they discovered that things have changed a lot since Waco. Oops!

I hope everyone will now just go home, and the .gov can fight its battle in the courtroom.
 
Though I read a few articles about this, I am still trying to understand this...Mr Bundy did not pay the grazing fees since he claimed the land belonged to Nevada, or had a right to the land due to his ancestors, paid the fees until 1993 then stopped, and something about rules regarding turtles:confused:. Also, the BLM were taking his cattle to settle the fees or because they were trespassing?

As for the armed response from both sides, was the BLM concerned Mr Bundy would try to intervene and Bundy (with his supporters) were concerned the BLM would attack them?

I agree the free speech zone was a bunch of BS, I can't make heads or tails of this...though I am glad it ended peacefully for now.
 
It *may* cause those managing the scene to use more force to end something quickly without several days/weeks long negotiations. More like a rush to resolve it one way or another before social media folks can mobilize.
Click to expand...
I don't think they can really move faster than the social media anymore. That was my point in a way. Ruby Ridge was conducted with relative secrecy and media coverage was carefully controlled (at least, in the beginning) at Waco. That can't really be done so easily now.

The problem is, there are plenty of folks who want an armed confrontation with the government so they can prove their patriotism or whatever. It only takes one of those yahoos to touch off a firestorm through malice, impulsiveness, or just simple error (waving the Gadsden flag with one hand and having an ND with the other).

I don't have a lot of sympathy for Bundy, but I do think the armed federal action was ridiculous.
Click to expand...
It was a bit over the top, but the guy was refusing to desist, refusing to pay over $1 million in fees, and he'd made cracks about resisting with force. I don't blame anyone for being prepared.
 
I wonder? If this action was to collect $1 MILLION in fees and fines, how much was spent? Helecopter time, overtime, contractor time?

Someone above stated that the Bundy's were defrauding the public intrest. Maybe, but I think once the bills for the last weeks action roll in, we may see the real fraud!

ETA: if the BLM is worried about trespassing, they should take some of those snipers and agents to the southern border.
 
Tom Servo said:
It was a bit over the top, but the guy was refusing to desist, refusing to pay over $1 million in fees, and he'd made cracks about resisting with force. I don't blame anyone for being prepared.
Click to expand...
But there were something like 600 (or was it 900) cattle TOTAL wandering around how many hundred thousand acres of scrub land, miles from Bundy's homestead. If all the feds had wanted to do was to round up the cattle, they could easily have done so and they could have gathered up at least the 400 or so they finally managed to (temporarily) corral before Mr. Bundy was even aware they were doing it.

This turned into a confrontation because (IMHO) both sides wanted to make it a confrontation.
 
Someone above stated that the Bundy's were defrauding the public intrest. Maybe, but I think once the bills for the last weeks action roll in, we may see the real fraud!
Click to expand...

What does the cost of dealing with the past weeks circumstances have to do with the decision of the BLM to enforce the laws of the United States? The primary reason it turned out to be so costly was the response by Bundy and friends. I am not saying that BLM didn't make some mistakes. Had it had sufficient forces with proper riot control training on site, I suspect a bad situation would not have turned worse. Referring to when the truck was blocked and the Bundy son had to be tasered.

ETA: Costs of executing a judgment are often added to the judgment. For instance, the cost of having a sheriff execute a money judgment or cost of forclosure on a mortgage.. I doubt it would happen, but wonder if any of the costs of the past week will be added onto the judgment against Bundy.
 
Last edited:
I just would like to know who the idiot was who ordered in all the armed officers? The entire action was far too extreme. As mentioned before, a federal lien could have been placed on the property and legal matters could have been taken further, but no, call in the armored vehicles and the thugs armed with automatic weapons and sniper rifles. Institute a no fly zone over the man's home. Ordinary citizens were threatened, some injured, over some cows grazing on property no one else used. This is how the Federal Government now treats its citizens? All this because Mr. Bundy made the statement that he would defend his property? There is a lot more to this story than simply grazing rights and a fine. And all some of you here are worried about is how it looks to the public? You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. All those who also called the protesters names should also apologize as there were more than a few vets and LEO's there. The fact of their presence should have been cause for sober reflection. I don't really care about whether Mr. Bundy is right or wrong. That, to me, is simply a sideshow. The issue is how it was handled. There is no way the Federal Gov. can ever justify such heavy handed action over such an insignificant matter. One thing the incident did prove is the absolute necessity of the right to keep and bear arms. There is the real possibility that without the presence of armed protesters, people could have died at the hands of our own gov.. Just goes to show how wise the Founding Fathers really were.
 
ronl said:
I don't really care about whether Mr. Bundy is right or wrong. That, to me, is simply a sideshow. The issue is how it was handled. There is no way the Federal Gov. can ever justify such heavy handed action over such an insignificant matter.
Click to expand...
That's the bottom line.

I found a reference to the size of the BLM tract in use by Bundy. 600,000 acres. On which he was grazing approximately 900 cattle. 600,000 acres is the size of entire counties in some of the smaller, eastern states. The feds could have done any number of things differently and achieved far better results, but for their own reasons they chose to engage in chest thumping, and it didn't work out as planned.

If the .gov can freeze or seize assets (such as bank accounts) of foreign nationals who are suspected of being terrorists, they could certainly have attached the bank accounts of an American family right here in the U.S. The fact that they chose to initiate an armed conflict rather than walking into a bank with a piece of paper is sobering.
 
The problem is, there are plenty of folks who want an armed confrontation with the government so they can prove their patriotism or whatever. It only takes one of those yahoos to touch off a firestorm through malice, impulsiveness, or just simple error (waving the Gadsden flag with one hand and having an ND with the other).
Click to expand...

The same could be said about the Feds. Given their history of heavy handed responses in the past, and the arrival of the militias (or whom ever), this powder keg could have easily went off. To this day, it is debated who fired first at Waco. If it was not to be NV, then it will be somewhere else when these confrontations turn south.

Reid on Monday told KRNV-TV in Reno: “It’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.”
 
Last edited:
I know some argue that because the feds declared this land theirs way back when (along with 90% of the state), when Nevada didn't have two farmers to rub together that could fight the siezures, that they can legally do anything to exclude anyone from their property. It is probably legal, but hardly right, and we should not tolerate that discrepancy in the law.

"To this day, it is debated who fired first at Waco."
Geraldo Rivera's mouth.

“It’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.”
Senators, on the other hand...

"I just would like to know who the idiot was who ordered in all the armed officers? The entire action was far too extreme."
That's apparently how land managers do things, now. Do recall the actions of park rangers during the most recent government shutdown, in closing our national parks in the most childish, capricious, and expensive manner, just to put the 'squeeze' on us impudent peasants. A wise electorate would demand the next president/congress fire a whole slew of officers in that organization, and make it very clear to the ground level folks that such intimidation will not be tolerated. Entire ranger stations would be fired/closed if these reports keep coming in; if they really do care for the wilderness' security like they claim, they will pipe down so as to keep their stations open.

TCB
 
Militerized Federal Police / Armed Patriots both sides have been spoiling for a fight for decades . I'm sure the Government has its eyes on alot of land as we move closer to a socialist state . I can't agree with the behavior of the indavidual that starts some of these situations but I have no tolerance for abuse of of power from any Government agency . Several years ago not far from here a dozen officers surounded a 135 lb drunk in a traffic stop . The idot gets out waving a little pocket knife around . I could have disarmed him by myself with OC spray or night stick . They blew his head off because proceadures had to be followed . Or realy to make a confirmed kill . No big deal just a drunk but he had a family You take this on a bigger scale and you have the Feds saying if you don't bend to our will you better have good life insurance .
 
When I last posted, I had only heard about this from a couple news outlets in NV and here. I live near the area and I guess what bothers me more than anything has nothing to do with Bundy being right or wrong.

It has reinforced my feelings that our government has grown too large and become exactly what our founding fathers feared it would. People in big cities and in arm chairs all over the place are deciding that we don't need the protection of what the founding fathers put into the constitution any longer that times have changed.

Well, after seeing what our government is capable of I will tell you times have not changed and we have what we the people deserve at this point. At this point I am scared of my own government and as a retired LEO have seen it from the inside and can tell you it wasn't always like this.

I am scared for my grandson's future.

I don't care if Bundy is right or wrong, I care about how the people there were treated by the government. Mr. President, you are a very smart person, though I disagree with you, you know civics, stop this madness before we have a civil war on our hands!

God save and bless the USA.
 
I will throw this in since it was brought up. It was NOT Park Rangers who closed parks, campgrounds and national monuments, that order came from WAY up the food chain. At its core it is pretty basic, you cannot use public land for grazing without paying for it, and he quit paying for it 20 years ago, so there was no rush to condem anyone or anything, the BLM has checked every box, dotted every i, and crossed every t legally. I would be like occupying a closed army base, not paying any rent, then assuming that they aren't going to remove you by force at some point. The claims of ancestral grazing rights etc. simply don't hold any legal water so to speak. Pick say a federally built/managed lake in the midwest, does the family that used to own the land that is now owned by the federal government have any "right" to farm, graze or utilize the land in any way that every other citizen doesn't have the right to? Answer is no. I fully understand the fact that cattle ranching is especially tough in the arid west, however that doesn't give anyone the right to the use of public lands for personal gain without paying for the use. Weather patterns and climate change is likely to make grazing more problematic it future years.
 
What discrepancy in the law?

In a general way, and this may be inaccurate in some places, so if any lawyer wants to correct it, feel free-

The Federal Government doesn't own land. The People own the land, and the Federal Government holds it in something like a trust. For various reasons, The People may not be allowed on The People's land, but that's part of held in trust. We gave it to our elected representatives to manage. And for reasons ranging from National Security, to personal security, to protecting natural resources, and others, we've decided (through our representatives) we aren't allowed on our land in some places.

The United States got the land in 1848, ceded from Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This treaty ended a war between Mexico and the United States- NOT just the two farmers Nevada had to rub together. People from all over the US fought in that war. I see no discrepancy that people from all over the US should have some stake in the land we acquired as a result of that fighting and bloodshed.

I have no idea when my family came to this country, but I'm fairly certain my tax burden wouldn't get a rebate if some debt from that time period were collected, so I'm also not interested in losing my 1/316,128,839th or so. The same is true of someone who takes the citizenship oath tomorrow. If the State of Nevada wants to buy some of this land, my representative should listen. If you want them to give it away, I hope they laugh you out the door.

We already gave Nevada more than enough free land in the enabling act
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top