Armed protest against government not a civil rights issue?

[JimDandy]

I have not followed the particulars of this case (nor BLM kerfuffles in general) but Bundy may have had a legitimate 5th Amendment claim (Takings Clause) that the fees were invalid because he was never compensated for his ancestral water and grazing rights. 19th century open-range laws can be complicated.

How did he get these grazing and water rights on land that wasn't his? According to the first link (of court documents I believe are public record and thus quotable?) from Frank

Defendant Bundy owns a ranch on private lands near Bunkerville, Nevada.

Prior to 1993, Defendant Bundy was
authorized to graze livestock on the Bunkerville Allotment under an ephemeral grazing permit.

The United States acquired what is now the State of Nevada in 1848 as part of the land
ceded from Mexico to the United States through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

United States v. Gardner, 107 F.3d 1314, 1318 (9th
Cir.1997) (reaffirmed that the United States has held title to the unappropriated public lands in
Nevada since Mexico ceded the land to the United States in 1848 and that the United States may
regulate grazing on those lands because it owns title to those lands).

The “New Trespass Lands”
are lands in southern Nevada, in the vicinity of Lake Mead and within an area known as Gold
Butte. They are owned by the United States and administered by BLM and NPS as BLM Lands
and NPS Lands, respectively

Defendant Bundy has never held a permit and has never been authorized to graze
livestock on BLM Lands or NPS Lands that constitute the New Trespass Lands.

Defendant Bundy has never had authorization to construct, use or maintain range
improvements on the BLM portion of the New Trespass Lands

I understand that to mean, his ranch - assuming it's the source of these ancestral claims you suggest he had - is his. The land he's being kicked off of isn't his, and was never his. The Federal Government only has the "unappropriated public lands" - if he had these rights, based on an ancestral claim prior to 1848, he'd have the land, too, wouldn't he?

Some of the land he's using he's never been authorized to use. I'm no lawyer, but I would hope you can't generate grazing and/or water rights on land you're not authorized to be on.

Just found this: Washington Post Article that says his family homesteaded the landin 1877, 29 years after the Government claimed title to all unappropriated public lands.

[zincwarrior]

Oh, come on, what a cop out. Are you too lazy to go back and read the posts about liens and etc. Heck even the news outlets I have been able to find that have written about this have mentioned those same things that were mentioned in previous posts.

Liens only matter if you try to sell the underlying asset. Putting liens on property is difficult if you didn't have a secured claim. The BLM is effectively an unsecured creditor and Bundy could file bankruptcy. Meanwhile he continues to commit trespass in open and notorious fashion.

[Buzzcook]

The movie "The Battleship Potemkin" has a very powerful scene call the Odessa Steps in which women and and children are gunned down by Tsarist troops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles...Steps_sequence

While the movie is broadly based on history, that particular scene is fiction. But as I said it is a very powerful scene and just about anyone who sees it has the urge to take up arms and overthrow the Tsar.

Well it looks as if there were some plans to recreate that scene in Nevada.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2014/04...e-me-a-target/

“It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,” Mack said in comments flagged by The Raw Story. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.”

Using human shields even if they are voluntary is not a tactic that we would expect from a legitimate militia.
It is what I would expect from a political "romantic" that sees their acts as having some greater historic meaning.
It is the basis of the so called militia movement and it's hubris on a nearly sociopathic level.
Just remember when you start waving the red flag, these are the kinds of people you're making common cause with.

[Dreaming100Straight]

I have not followed the particulars of this case (nor BLM kerfuffles in general) but Bundy may have had a legitimate 5th Amendment claim (Takings Clause) that the fees were invalid because he was never compensated for his ancestral water and grazing rights. 19th century open-range laws can be complicated.

I don't think he ever made that claim.

You cannot demand compensation for the taking of something you never owned.

We keep hearing about what Bundy claims his ancestors did, but I haven't seen any proof. Have you?

[Dreaming100Straight]

This article seems to pretty well document some of the problems with Cattle Grazing and the Feds over cattle grazing rights.

[jrinne0430]

I hope this is the end of it but, some may not feel that way.

“They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,” Reid said, according to the paper. “I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism.”

“They had sniper rifles in the freeway. They had weapons, automatic weapons. They had children lined up. They wanted to make sure they got hurt first … What if others tried the same thing?” he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...ic-terrorists/

[Dreaming100Straight]

Bundy and supporters had the early public relations advantage, but information about the threat the feds faced is now coming out. See the photo of the militiaman sniper on the bridge and other pictures released by NBC.

[Tom Servo]

See the photo of the militiaman sniper on the bridge and other pictures released by NBC.

Those guys in the faux fatigues have badges reading "Praetorian Guard." For the record, the Praetorian guard protected emperors. When they felt they weren't being paid enough, they were known for killing the men they served. Really disingenuous.

That said, I've seen the pictures of the wannabe sniper on the bridge, the one who's muzzling a whole crowd of people. I wouldn't be very happy to have him "protecting" me.

The takeway to this whole thing is this: if I don't like a decision the government makes, right or wrong, I just have to get a bunch of my friends to show up with guns to deter enforcement. I really don't like where that leads us.

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

The takeway to this whole thing is this: if I don't like a decision the government makes, right or wrong, I just have to get a bunch of my friends to show up with guns to deter enforcement. I really don't like where that leads us.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but...

Would you have the same opinion if the Government "decision" was to round up US Citizens instead of Cattle? Round them up for violating "Common Sense" gun control laws similar to the situation brewing in NY and CT?

[Dreaming100Straight]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but...

Would you have the same opinion if the Government "decision" was to round up US Citizens instead of Cattle? Round them up for violating "Common Sense" gun control laws similar to the situation brewing in NY and CT?

Try staying on topic, but whether or not the government should be permitted to seize cattle under court orders following due process is far from rounding up people for violating gun laws which have so far withstood constitutional scrutiny. That you feel the need to divert the argument to the situation in NY and CT suggest you are unable to defend the conduct of the protestors and militia in Nevada.

[steve4102]

That you feel the need to divert the argument to the situation in NY and CT suggest you are unable to defend the conduct of the protestors and militia in Nevada.

You are correct, I am unable to defend their conduct. I think they are either Wrong or Mislead and protesting something they know little or nothing about.

BTW it is "Protester" not "protestors"

[Tom Servo]

Would you have the same opinion if the Government "decision" was to round up US Citizens instead of Cattle?

Those are two very different things, and that's part of the problem here.

We're not talking about Germany in 1939. This guy refused to pay taxes and fees, and the government decided to seize some of his property. Am I going to refuse to pay for a car because gas got expensive, then confront the repo man at gunpoint? No.

Bundy isn't some downtrodden crusader for our rights. He's a guy who flunked basic civics, took advantage of property that wasn't his, then called his friends in to interfere with a legitimate law-enforcement operation with the force of arms. That's mob justice, and condoning it leads us down some pretty dismal paths.

Not everyone who waves a gun around and chants the right slogans is our friend.

[kilimanjaro]

When they start rounding up Jews or Christians or whatever, we'll all show up to stop that from happening.

Rounding up cattle grazing in trespass? I'll pick my battles a bit more carefully.

[LogicMan]

Those guys in the faux fatigues have badges reading "Praetorian Guard." For the record, the Praetorian guard protected emperors. When they felt they weren't being paid enough, they were known for killing the men they served. Really disingenuous.

That said, I've seen the pictures of the wannabe sniper on the bridge, the one who's muzzling a whole crowd of people. I wouldn't be very happy to have him "protecting" me.

The takeway to this whole thing is this: if I don't like a decision the government makes, right or wrong, I just have to get a bunch of my friends to show up with guns to deter enforcement. I really don't like where that leads us.

But Bundy didn't do that. The militia forces came in after seeing the militaristic actions on the part of the feds, who IMO have no business showing up in the blatantly militarized manner that they did. My takeaway is that if you're the government and you want to enforce the law, depending on whom you're dealing with, there are more peaceful ways to go about doing it. You don't treat like a terrorist a guy who refuses to remove cattle from land.

As for the wannabes in this situation, I'd say a good chunk of them were the federal government. You'd have thought they were preparing to invade an armed compound or something. Regarding the militiamen, a lot of them may well be the real deal, as the Oathkeepers were there who consist of military and law enforcement.

People are tired of the overreach by the government regarding using militarized law enforcement to enforce things that do not require such force.

[LogicMan]

When they start rounding up Jews or Christians or whatever, we'll all show up to stop that from happening.

Rounding up cattle grazing in trespass? I'll pick my battles a bit more carefully.

That's not what they did. They showed up in a heavily militarized fashion to "round up" those cattle. If the people had folded, then actions like this by the government will only increase.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by LogicMan

...My takeaway is that if you're the government and you want to enforce the law, depending on whom you're dealing with, there are more peaceful ways to go about doing it...

Yes, there can be more peaceful ways to go about it. But, also yes, it can depend on with whom you're dealing.

So what if you're dealing with someone who had previously, and not too long ago, said the following in a deposition under oath (Bundy deposition as quoted in the United States' motion for summary judgment, pp. 14 - 15):

Q. Now, let’s go back to the question. Let’s assume the federal authorities have the authorization to present themselves on land, whether you call it your ranch or the former Bunkerville Allotment, or for that matter the new trespass lands, and they’ve got the authorization in hand to remove cattle that belongs to you and they literally, physically, take the steps necessary to accomplish that right there and you're standing by. Are you going to undertake any effort to physically stop that?

A. Yes.

Q. What efforts would that be?

A. Whatever it takes.

Q. Okay. Would that include -- when you say “whatever it takes,” would that include the soliciting, the assistance of neighbors, friends, family, supporters of yours to do whatever it takes in the scenario I just described?

A. Yes.

[tony pasley]

I don't claim to know both sides of the complete story. I do find it troubling the selective enforcement and extremes used. There are far more critical needs for that LEO manpower all over the country. Using the "law is the law",reasoning why did they not raid the IRS for documents subpoena by Congress. Why did Why did INS release 2,000 Illegal aliens with criminal history. We are to be a nation of Laws then equal application of the law should be the concern of all of us. When the law is used as a tool to set example then we are all in trouble and from what I have seen and heard, I am lead to believe it was.

[Dreaming100Straight]

But Bundy didn't do that. The militia forces came in after seeing the militaristic actions on the part of the feds, who IMO have no business showing up in the blatantly militarized manner that they did. My takeaway is that if you're the government and you want to enforce the law, depending on whom you're dealing with, there are more peaceful ways to go about doing it. You don't treat like a terrorist a guy who refuses to remove cattle from land.

I forgot that Bundy and his family didn't do a thing to encourage militia members to come to his assistance.

[Tom Servo]

Using the "law is the law",reasoning why did they not raid the IRS for documents subpoena by Congress.

I can understand the frustration, but those are really two different things.

Our way of life is based on the rule of law. People who flaunt the law are not generally considered to be good citizens. When one of those people recruits armed thugs to defy the law, what does that really make him?

I don't see Bunkerville as a victory at all. I see it as a distressing example of rule by force, and there's no place for that in our country.

[LogicMan]

Yes, there can be more peaceful ways to go about it. But, also yes, it can depend on with whom you're dealing.

So what if you're dealing with someone who had previously, and not too long ago, said the following in a deposition under oath (Bundy deposition as quoted in the United States' motion for summary judgment, pp. 14 - 15):

I think there are still more diplomatic ways to do it. If I were the Feds, I would have tried to get Bundy to make the first move. Send out some Feds to round up the cattle, and then if Bundy and his crew present themselves armed and start threatening the Feds, who at that point at just Federal employees trying to enforce the law, then tell the Bundy's that either they have to back down or else the really big-league law enforcement is going to end up getting called in, then if he still doesn't back down, then bring in the big stuff.

Then the government is justified in saying, "We tried to do it in a peaceable manner, but he was threatening to kill our agents."

[LogicMan]

I can understand the frustration, but those are really two different things.

Our way of life is based on the rule of law. People who flaunt the law are not generally considered to be good citizens. When one of those people recruits armed thugs to defy the law, what does that really make him?

I don't see Bunkerville as a victory at all. I see it as a distressing example of rule by force, and there's no place for that in our country.

Bundy didn't recruit all those people (militia don't just show up because some guy wants them to) and I wouldn't call them armed thugs either (to a degree, I think that term could be applied to the forces of the BLM). For one, a lot of them weren't armed, and two, of those that were armed, there were the Oath Keepers there, who are made up of military and law enforcement. And there was also a request not to wear camouflage and to keep weapons in vehicles. It's not like the Feds said, "Give up the land," and Bundy called in an army of armed militiamen ready to start a gun battle.

Such a response from the BLM I see as a distressing example of rule by force and there's no place for that in our country either, unless really needed. Remember, law enforcement has become increasingly militarized over the last three decades. Every government agency and police department it seems has a SWAT team now and armored vehicles and so forth. For example, NASA and the Department of Education EACH have a SWAT team. This creates two problems:

1) A lot of said SWAT teams aren't really trained to the level that they should be, because SWAT is supposed to be a highly-trained, specialized form of law enforcement for extreme situations

2) In order to justify the budget for a SWAT team, one must use them, and thus you have SWAT being used for all manner of different things that are completely inappropriate (for example raiding a guitar business over using the wrong wood).

In this case, it seems Bundy makes the "whatever it takes" statement, and the Feds see that as a reason to send in their army.

[LogicMan]

I forgot that Bundy and his family didn't do a thing to encourage militia members to come to his assistance.

What did they do?

[Dreaming100Straight]

And there was also a request not to wear camouflage and to keep weapons in vehicles.

I guess the still and video photos of snipers and people that looked like militia wearing handguns and camo were photo shopped.

[Dreaming100Straight]

I think there are still more diplomatic ways to do it. If I were the Feds, I would have tried to get Bundy to make the first move. Send out some Feds to round up the cattle, and then if Bundy and his crew present themselves armed and start threatening the Feds, who at that point at just Federal employees trying to enforce the law, then tell the Bundy's that either they have to back down or else the really big-league law enforcement is going to end up getting called in, then if he still doesn't back down, then bring in the big stuff.

Then the government is justified in saying, "We tried to do it in a peaceable manner, but he was threatening to kill our agents."

What make you think that the Bundy crew hadn't threatened the Feds or that they weren't armed. and do you think its a little late locking the kennel after the dogs of war are let out? Are you saying that the cattle round up crew was entitled to any ranger protection given Bundy's history of not to well veiled threats?

[LogicMan]

When the Feds took up positions with guns trained on the protesters, the militia did the same. There was an armed standoff there for awhile. And not all militia didn't wear camouflage, but the request was there from what I understand not to. Weapons were not always kept in vehicles as there were certain points where they were needed (standoff), but if not needed, it was requested they be kept there.

What make you think that the Bundy crew hadn't threatened the Feds or that they weren't armed. and do you think its a little late locking the kennel after the dogs of war are let out? Are you saying that the cattle round up crew was entitled to any ranger protection given Bundy's history of not to well veiled threats?

Protection is fine, calling out an army the way they did is not.