Armed protest against government not a civil rights issue?

Status
Not open for further replies.
To read this thread one would think Mr. Bundy had been to court many, many times and I have not found it so. There have only been two rulings against him, one in 1998 and one in 2013. The second ruling was probably just the BLM having a judge sign off on an order to remove the cattle, not a day in court for Mr. Bundy, so the issue has not been trurned over and over in the court system as some would have us believe. The first case should have been before the state courts, not federal, but the gov. does know how to massage the system. In truth, his case might just have merit, but it would take a lot of legal time to sort out the truth of the matter, and courts being what they are these days, it seems the truth matters little. The fact is this issue may never be properly ejudicated in the court system. I doubt if the Bundys have the financial ability to see the issue through. Let's face it, the game is heavily stacked in favor of the Feds, as they are backed by teams of lawyers paid from an endless supply of our tax dollars. Fair?, not really but that is how the system has evolved, as biased as it may seem.
I have tried to look at this situation fairly, though I will candidly say I find myself leaning toward the Bundys, sort of the underdog thing working. There are really no true good guys in this situation, but I find it very interesting in that it brings to light many of the dilemmas that need to be addressed by our society as a whole. Fairness before the courts in these instances, the militarization of the police and governmental agencies, growing power of a gov. that seems to be out of control are just a few. If we are to survive as a free people then we cannot pretend these issues do not exist. They must be confronted and dealt with.
 
I can't seem to find the text for the National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933 however the article I'm reading does refer to 32 U.S. Code § 109 which seems to codify the difference between post 1933 National Guard and current state militia or Defense Forces. Paragraph C strongly suggests that these state militia or Defense Forces do not and can not answer to the President of the United States very easily.

The first case should have been before the state courts
Click to expand...
Why? It's not state land, it's not a state agency. As near as I can tell the State of Nevada is in no way party to the suit, and the State laws do not apply at all. It's all Federal Law, and therefore Federal Courts.
 
Before assuming whatever fits your world image, take the time to get a few basic facts about he history of the Bundy litigation. You can start with reading the following court documents.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...dgment_Dec_2012_in_United_States_v._Bundy.pdf

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/United_States_v_Bundy_Court_Order_July_2013.pdf

Bundy's claim that the land belongs to Nevada and not the United States is ludicrously based on public policy of the state to seek to acquire lands retained by the Federal Government. The legislation makes no sense at all, which is why Nevada dropped its claim of a moral and legal right to Federal lands.
 
Last edited:
ronl said:
Another thing at the heart of the confrontation that has yet to be addressed is the proliferation of alphabet agencies, such as the BLM,EPA, etc. that write regulations that have no standing under the Constitution. They are not laws unless they have passed through the legislative process, and as such have no weight of law behind them. In the strictest legal sense they cannot be enforced, yet we see it every day.
Click to expand...
But federal regulations DO have the weight of law. The Congress enacts laws that either direct or authorize the agencies to adopt regulations. The agencies then adopt and promulgate regulations. Generally the regulations go through a lengthy public review and comment period. Unless taken to court and declared unconstitutional, these regulations are just as "presumptively" constitutional as any law, and they have the full force of law behind them.
 
But federal regulations DO have the weight of law.
Click to expand...

You say that like there's decades of history to support the idea that the EPA really can fine companies that dump drums of toxic waste into our ground water for Erin Brockovich to find.

Or hundreds to thousands of people who have violated some BATFE regulation ending up in massive fines and or prison time- the next iteration of which may very well be being discussed in another thread on this very website about Ares Arms.

Next you'll be telling me DOD restrictions on private firearms on base, or Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) restrictions on firearms on their installations, USPS restrictions, etc. etc. etc. all have the force of law?

For all the vague 10th amendment implications and inferences being made lately, no one has yet answered the first question that matters.

Why should this person's civil disobedience (IF that's what it was) immunize them from the penalties involved in all but stealing a huge tract of land from the Federal Government.
 
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"=Free Speech Zones...just does not sound right.:cool:
 
And chances are the 14th amendment incorporates the 1st against the states as well.

And I don't know where this free speech zone was.

But much like the concealed vs open carry round and round we've got going if you can speak HERE, but not HERE, your free speech rights MIGHT not be "abridged".


A law against standing in the middle of traffic shouting at passing motorists doesn't abridge free speech does it? What about a law against 20 people doing it such that they actually close the road?
 
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"=Free Speech Zones...just does not sound right.
Click to expand...
Congress shall also make no law abridging the freedom of speech, yet we have laws against things like libel and slander which are widely accepted.

It's not a game of absolutes. There are always restrictions. The trick is to keep them from nibbling too far in from the edges.
 
But federal regulations DO have the weight of law. The Congress enacts laws that either direct or authorize the agencies to adopt regulations. The agencies then adopt and promulgate regulations. Generally the regulations go through a lengthy public review and comment period. Unless taken to court and declared unconstitutional, these regulations are just as "presumptively" constitutional as any law, and they have the full force of law behind them.
Click to expand...

The court will defer to agency regulations so long as the do not clearly fly in the face of the intent of Congress.
 
My first take on this was that Bundy was trespassing on public land. Looking at the BLM as a regulatory agency puts it in a different perspective for me. If they

Back in the 20's and 30's when there wasn't as much precedent for the government to regulate things that were formerly relegated to the states, the federal government simply charged a tax on automatics to effectively ban them. It was "registration", but with a high enough tax that it was almost impossible for a business to stock and sell them. The treasury department was in the business of enforcing a defacto ban.

It seems to me this is what happened with Bundy. Our legislators created the BLM and gave it quite a bit of power. And rather than prohibiting ranching in Clark County, the agency simply raised the rent and lowered the number of cattle to the point it was impossible to raise cattle on it.

And going to court on it is useless. The BLM is the law. It would be like going to court to appeal a ruling from the ATF's technical branch. A piece of plastic or aluminum is or isn't a gun because the ATF says so, period.

As long as the legislature gives unchecked powers to appointed officials, there really isn't anything we can do about it.
 
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"=Free Speech Zones...just does not sound right.
Click to expand...

Nor does the protest the day the truck was blocked sound very peacable.

I am tired of hearing about the woman being thrown to the ground. An officer caught up to her and threw her down to stop her from walking into the side of a moving vehicle; possibly injuring herself or causing the vehicle to swerve and strike another person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ5AzjQF6Kw
 
Quote:
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"=Free Speech Zones...just does not sound right.
Click to expand...
Congress shall also make no law abridging the freedom of speech, yet we have laws against things like libel and slander which are widely accepted.

It's not a game of absolutes. There are always restrictions. The trick is to keep them from nibbling too far in from the edges.
Click to expand...

From what we have seen over the past decade, those edges have been devoured.
 
I've already made my opinion clear on this issue in previous posts, that is, I'm on the side of the law, what's good for my state (NV), and what is good for all tax payers.

It is interesting reading what others are posting about what they've seen on the news media about this issue. In fact, it becomes very clear that some only watch or follow certain media outlets. The coverage of this issue was vastly different on right & left leaning media coverage. As is usually the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
 
I learned something new today about this BLM vs Bundy issue.

It seems that the head of the BLM has a son that is a lawyer for a Chinese company that makes solar panels. It seems that the head of the BLM is attempting to secure the land for the project.

There are many other issues too, which have after much thought about this issue has made me afraid of my government! I actually have lost sleep over it.

No citizen should be afraid of their government. We are not subjects and we have rights. It also escapes me that none of the media have reported this part of it.

I also learned that BLM has been killing his cows for 20 years due to non payment of fees. They have buried some of them. This situation has been brewing for many years and it certainly isn't over.

We really should be vigilant about our rights to free speech and to our arms.

Thanks, for this thread and for listening. You guys have shed much light on many things.

Mel
 
Snopes looked into the Chinese solar plant theory and found the company abandoned the project a few months ago because of lack of customers for their energy.
 
guruatbol said:
It seems that the head of the BLM has a son that is a lawyer for a Chinese company that makes solar panels. It seems that the head of the BLM is attempting to secure the land for the project.
<snip>
It also escapes me that none of the media have reported this part of it.
Click to expand...
If it hasn't been reported anywhere, how do you know this? Please give us your source. It's pretty serious to allege this kind of conflict of interest, and it would be useful to know where this originated and what evidence there is for it.

ETA: Thanks, kkb. That's helpful.
 
The question was asked, how would I have planned that OP?

The problem is that the OP didn't need to happen. All the available remedies were not taken. Those needed to be taken first. Everything possible in the reasonable collection of funds due and allowing Mr Bundy to remove the cattle should have been done.

The administration of this great land negotiate with other countries such as Russia in Ukraine matters until they are blue in the face, and does very little or nothing at all.

Had I been placed in charge, I would not have placed one officer on the ground until the animals had all been located via air and put down. Once down I would dispatch unarmed contract labor to collect the carcasses.

Yes his cows would be dead, and sent to the dog food processors and that money used to pay his bill, but it would have been done before all this big hoopla had a chance to happen.

When and if Mr Bundy used violence and only then would force necessary to stop the threat be used.

FYI, Mr Bundy's son was tasered for no legal reason from what limited information I can get. I would love to have access to all the reports on this so I could be educated on what the officer using the taser was thinking. Did he feel threatened or was he just enforcing what I believe is an illegal free speech zone?

There seem to be so many questions that I am sure will never be answered. I am thankful that someone came to their senses and stopped the madness before we had bloodshed.

I am still afraid of what some gung ho bureaucrat in some office somewhere with filtered information will order his lemmings to do. What will the outcome be? How far up the chain of command did this go? Will anyone pay for poor decisions?

We will never know. I can tell you that the majority in this area will defend against a tyrannical government. I just hope I am old enough to be gone before this happens.

I see this more a matter of time.

Mel

Edit to add - I see that our government is no better at this point than what we read about Russia in Ukraine.
 
I really don't trust everything I read on Snopes either. Sorry if it hurts your feelings.

As for my source, I am trying to track it down now to see if it is legit.

Maybe I should have not mentioned it at all.

Even if the company abandoned it 3 months ago, the nepotism is still there. I will continue to try to get info on this and expose it as I can.

Mel
 
The problem is that the OP didn't need to happen. All the available remedies were not taken. Those needed to be taken first. Everything possible in the reasonable collection of funds due and allowing Mr. Bundy to remove the cattle should have been done.
Click to expand...

If you know of what you speak, kindly tell us what reasonable steps were not taken by the BLM during the 20 years of informal, administrative, and court proceedings.
 
The Snopes article thoroughly debunks any connection between the Chinese energy project and the Bundy case. Given that they're not related, the Reid/EPP connection and any possible nepotism are off-topic here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top