Armed protest against government not a civil rights issue?

[Tom Servo]

No doubt the 'free speech zones' were a violation of rights.

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.

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]

"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.

[JimDandy]

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]

"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?

[totalloser]

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.

[Dreaming100Straight]

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.
__________________

[Tom Servo]

Here's how thuggery debt collection is done: Get some random judge appointed by a random politician to take personal property without due process.

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.

This is like having the SWAT team kick in your door for parking tickets.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by totalloser

Expecting concrete proof from an opinion on an internet forum is asinine. I am entitled to my opinion,...

And an unsupported opinion deserves being ignored.

Originally Posted by totalloser

Read your Constitution. Every citizen has the *right* to a trial by a jury of *his peers*....

I guess you've never read the Constitution, or at least don't understand it. The 6th Amendment provides (emphasis added):

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).

[guruatbol]

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

[JimDandy]

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]

"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.

[zxcvbob]

1) Range wars over water rights in the West go *way* back.
2) It's hard to find a good guy in this story.

That is all.

[BarryLee]

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.

[Dreaming100Straight]

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.

[Tom Servo]

I couldn’t help but think what some casual observer might think of firearms enthusiast after seeing some of the news reports.

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?

There may come a time to draw a line and rattle sabers over it, but this isn't it.

[JimDandy]

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?

[zxcvbob]

There may come a time to draw a line and rattle sabers over it, but this isn't it.

[devil's advocate] Perhaps it was the time to *practice* saber rattling?

[JimDandy]

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.

[Wyoredman]

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!

[Sierra280]

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.

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!

[Fishing_Cabin]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

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.

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.

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

[jrinne0430]

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. 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.

[Tom Servo]

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 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.

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.

[Wyoredman]

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.