Armed protest against government not a civil rights issue?

[Dreaming100Straight]

Since when is a confrontation between armed protesters, many of which are members of "militias" and a federal agency over alleged usurpation of civil rights not an appropriate issue for discussion on a "Law and Civil Rights" forum of a gun rights board?

The Clive Bundy v. BLM dispute plainly involves:

1. The right to bear arms (arguably here against a tyrannical governmental agency)
2. The right to petition the government for redress
3. The right of due process
4. The right to be secure in property from unreasonable search and seizure (of the cattle).

[Spats McGee]

If you're referring to this thread, Brian Pfleuger gave his reasons for closing it. We're not going to have a big, long thread about why the other thread was closed. That's been explained.

If you want to have a discussion about the civil rights involved in that dispute, and how they relate to the 2A or civil rights generally, that would be fine. Just tell us how that conflict relates to

Originally Posted by Dreaming100Straight

1. The right to bear arms (arguably here against a tyrannical governmental agency)
2. The right to petition the government for redress
3. The right of due process
4. The right to be secure in property from unreasonable search and seizure (of the cattle).

[Frank Ettin]

As for due process, as pointed out in this article:

...In removing Bundy's livestock from public lands, the park service and land bureau are carrying out two U.S. District Court orders from two different judges.

"Cattle have been grazing in trespass on public lands in Southern Nevada for more than two decades," the National Park Service said. "The BLM and NPS have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter administratively and judicially. Impoundment of cattle illegally grazing on public lands is an option of last resort."

Added the BLM: "Mr. Bundy has also failed to comply with multiple court orders to remove his cattle from the federal lands and to end the illegal trespass."...

Bundy has had his day in court, and has lost -- more than once.

[JimDandy]

4. The right to be secure in property from unreasonable search and seizure (of the cattle).

A court order to seize cattle on land not yours after you've been told it's not yours, and you can either pay to use it, or remove your cattle -

Doesn't strike me as very unreasonable.

You may be willing to give up your interests in these public lands to some yahoo that thinks he has squatter's rights. Me, I'd rather not pay more taxes to make up for the revenue loss, as he all but steals land that I as part of The People happen to own a stake in.

[Dreaming100Straight]

Fair enough Spats.

Bundy received due process, but continued to graze for 20 years without paying fees despite an injunction. His claims were tested in and rejected by the courts and BLM finally commenced to enforce court orders permitting the seizure of the cattle. The Bundy's commenced protesting as was still their right, but the protesting began to get out of hand with the blockage of a civilian truck contracted by BLM. While the protestors committed some offenses, BLM wisely broke off contact when the level of confrontation reached the point that a protestor was tasered.

Up until then, I see little relevance to the 2A. However, the involvement of the militia was a mistake IMO. Even if the Bundy family gets all their cattle back and gets to graze for free, and even if all firearms were lawfully carried, I believe the majority of voters and law makers will see the conduct of the militia as dangerous. The result of their perception, perhaps that should be misperception, will be further limitations on my gun rights.

[JimDandy]

That reminds me of the thread about rights you thought were in the Constitution but aren't. You wouldn't believe how many people I've talked to that think somehow protesting the government is enough to make an arrest "wrong" and/or "illegal".

[Sierra280]

The irony is astounding.

Bundy wants to protect his cattle and illegal grazing use of BLM land, doesn't pay for it so BLM comes, removes the watering troughs they had been maintaining on the grazing land and starts rounding up cattle. Bundy gets a whole bunch of armed extremists on his side so BLM releases his cows and leaves to avoid armed conflict. Any bets on whether BLM put the watering troughs back? Lol.

[veamon]

I thought I read awhile ago that militias weren't legal anymore.

[Evan Thomas]

I thought I read awhile ago that militias weren't legal anymore.

I'm pretty sure that it's illegal for armed extremists (a better description than "militias") to threaten federal employees.

Federal law (10 U.S. Code § 311) defines two classes of militia: the organized militia ( National Guard and the Naval Militia), and the unorganized militia, which consists of "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age ... under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard." In addition, some states have their own organized militias, which are state-run, official bodies.

Wyoming (and perhaps one or two other states) prohibits private militias, and many states have laws regulating what they're allowed to do (prohibiting them from parading in public, for example). Apart from those exceptions, as long as they're not doing anything illegal, any bunch of folks with guns can get together and call themselves a "militia," but the legal standing of such private groups is no different from that of any other private club made up of people who collect stamps, for instance, or who get together and sew quilts.

[ronl]

Before you make any judgements here, please first do some research on how BLM has operated in the past. You may be in for somewhat of a shock as to how they have obtained a great deal of land. You may also find out that the way land is managed by them has often been somewhat shady, to say the least. Mr. Bundy did offer to pay the grazing fee, to Clark Co., not the BLM, as he saw the handwriting on the wall and understood that money sent to them would be used against him. He was very wise in that respect, as that is indeed what happened. There is also the purported issue concerning Harry Reid, the Chinese, a Mr. Whitmore, I believe, and the desire to "green up" that area to make a solar farm out of it. If you look into that situation alone, there are just too many connections for me to believe the incident is only coincidental. We will probably never know the truth. What bothered me most was the setting up of " First Amendment Zones". Your freedom of speech is limited to one small area in the middle of the desert? Really? I also did not much care for how they roughed up the women and tazered that guy for questioning them. I'd bet the situation is far from over, but I am glad cool heads prevailed.

[JimDandy]

Wyoming (and perhaps one or two other states) prohibits private militias

I suspect it's quite a few more that prohibit the private militias. Additionally a Surprising Number of States Maintain a State Militia in addition to their National Guard force. Including, strangely, the state of New York.

You may be in for somewhat of a shock as to how they have obtained a great deal of land.

I'd be extremely surprised if they acquired it in any way they couldn't or shouldn't have. Some people challenge the idea of a National Park or Forest in and of itself. I find it hard to believe those people would let an unconstitutional transfer of land from a State to the Feds go by. And for the Federal Government to get land from a State today, as I'm given to understand from federal lawyers, is red-tape heavy and extremely limited. What this boils down to is that if the BLM is managing land, it's land the Federal Government has had for quite some time.

Mr. Bundy did offer to pay the grazing fee, to Clark Co., not the BLM,

And I can offer to pay my rent to my next door neighbor. As they don't own the house I'm living in I shouldn't be surprised when the guy who does tries to evict me.

In fact, The Blaze a highly conservative "news" site can't in good conscience stretch this issue the way you're suggesting here:

There is also the purported issue concerning Harry Reid, the Chinese, a Mr. Whitmore, I believe, and the desire to "green up" that area to make a solar farm out of it.

The solar farm in quesiton is nearly 200 miles away. The closest they can come to getting Reid involved is pointing out a high mucky-muck in the BLM used to work for Reid a couple years ago.

As you'll notice the Blaze freely admits the Federal Government owns the land, and has owned the land since before Nevada was admitted to the Union.

And in this case, the BLM got the land through an entirely unsurprising way. Nearly 200 years ago the US defeated Mexico, and took the territory in spoils via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and congress "gave" the land to the BLM when they created the BLM.

[Lucas McCain]

I suspect that there is going to be some real serious repercussions from the BLM backing off. Nevada has some very confusing and ambiguous open range laws.
Rancher Bundy says that he does not have a contract with the federal government, yet it is federal land. Now some people might believe that if you don't have title to the land and you are using it, you should be paying rent to some one for the land usage. Not so, there is a claim called "adverse possession". This claim enables a party to take the land (better known as stealing by court order)if they have used the land over a specified period of time long enough that it gives them title to the land. All legal and binding. Many states have this "squatters right law" in place. This has happened numerous times in quite a few states, bad old laws,cooked up over a 100 years ago and still on the books.
I suspect that Rancher Bundy is setting up the BLM for that kind of a claim, and the BLM is clueless. I hope I am wrong, but we will have to wait for cow s--t to thicken.
Just my take on this situation.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by ronl

Before you make any judgements here, please first do some research on how BLM has operated in the past. You may be in for somewhat of a shock as to how they have obtained a great deal of land. You may also find out that the way land is managed by them has often been somewhat shady, to say the least....

If there are any such issues they should be appropriately addressed in court and/or through political process.

And Mr. Bundy has already lost in front of two federal judges.

[kilimanjaro]

There is no adverse possession against the government, except in very limited circumstances, none of which apply in the Bundy matter. If Bundy is planning on an adverse possession case against the United States, he's getting very bad legal advice, like those folks who claim they can file a document with the County and convert to Allodial Title to get out of paying property taxes.

What does seem to apply, is the early history of the use of the Public Domain in the frontier West. The first users of the water have a senior right to the water, to the exclusion of 'downstream' users. Bundy ancestors put cattle on the open range around 1877, and gained a right to water they needed to keep the cattle alive. With that right, they also get a grazing right, to keep the cattle alive. You can't have one without the other, it seems. Under state law, the rights would be legally vested, and some Federal case law says the same thing. It gets murky with the rise of the Grazing Service (now BLM), Allotments, permits, fees, etc., and 19th-century purchases of Allotments and the rights that come with such ownership of partial fee estates. Bundy apparently purchased such an Allotment around 1890 or so, and these things have morphed over time into Grazing Permits, Animal Unit Months, etc., the modern system of administering ranching uses of the public domain.

Add to that modern regulations, fees, case law concerning water rights where Indian needs and wildlife needs are at issue, the fact that the US owns 90% of the land area of Nevada, far more than any other state, and what is legal and what is correct is very convoluted and there are no black and white answers to either the positions held by Bundy or the United States. Throw in the politicization of one or both sides of the matter, and it gets a whole lot worse.

I watched a couple of protestor videos taken at the protest site, there was without doubt the real potential for serious violence, and the BLM was wise to back away and end it for now. I think people on both sides were stupid to set up the situation that resulted in the confrontations. While the citizens who just showed up to protest are within their rights, the BLM managers who planned this 'event' have some explaining to do before Congress, and some militia organizers have some explaining to do, as well. There seemed to be a 'provoke me' calculus on both sides, and people could have been in the middle of a shootout very easily.

[totalloser]

Some of the comments regarding the militia that showed up clearly show that the posters have NO idea who or what they are talking about. Do a little homework, these aren't a bunch of yahoos.

If you sign a contract for use of a land resource in perpetuity, and the owner of the land sells it, guess what the new owner gets along with it? Yeah, the owner of the land use rights.

BLM acted like circus clowns killing +- 160 cattle and burying them in backhoe dug mass graves. Separating calves to die using helicopter roundups and killing/taking cattle that belonged to other ranchers. They also spent a fair amount of time pointing rifles at people for no good reason, closed county roads, pushed out press, declared a no-fly zone. And put up a fence indicating they have the authority to suspend the constitution outside of a plastic fence.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by totalloser

...If you sign a contract for use of a land resource in perpetuity, and the owner of the land sells it, guess what the new owner gets along with it? Yeah, the owner of the land use rights...

Produce solid evidence that such a contract existed here. As note repeatedly, Bundy lost in court.

[totalloser]

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.

I, for one, am glad this didn't turn into another Ruby Ridge or Waco where the taxpayer has to cough up for a wrongful death lawsuit. The whole thing went swimmingly well all things considered. Only cows lost their lives.

[Sierra280]

No doubt the 'free speech zones' were a violation of rights. Even our governor spoke out about it, then BLM got rid of them.

As for the dead cows, it's unfortunate (beef is good!) but even if BLM rounded up all the cattle and auctioned them off--it still wouldn't amount to the 1.1million Bundy owed the public. (I say public because, we all own BLM land, here in NV you can ride your ATV, go shooting, camping, hiking, horse back riding, etc on BLM land). BLM was willing to let him feed a limited number of his cattle for $1.67 per head per month on the publics land and he didn't pay.

The issue has been repeatedly litigated and Bundy repeatedly lost.

Bundy repeatedly stayed he would do 'whatever it takes' to protect his cattle/grazing. When someone makes threats (no matter how vague) to the govt; expect them to bring guns.

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.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by totalloser

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....

Yes, it is your responsibility to do so. If you make the claim that something is true, you need to substantiate that claim. If you can not, no one ever has any reason to accept what you say.

As for the feds, there's obviously more to things than you claim, since the BLM sued Bundy and won.

[OuTcAsT]

After reading the websites of some of the "extremists" it appears that, for most of them, their involvement had very little to do with helping Bundy secure his property. Most of them began to mobilize as a result of the BLM setting up areas that were considered "no 1A zones". While Bundy's claims to the land are disputable, the Government attempting to quash the freedom of speech is undeniably a civil rights matter.

[psalm7]

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 .

[Panfisher]

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.

[JimDandy]

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?

[totalloser]

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.

[JimDandy]

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?