Posted on 04/14/2014 4:29:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Warning follows threat from Harry Reid that grazing dispute 'not over'
The chief of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association says his sources inside the federal government are warning that Washington’s weekend retreat in a dispute over grazing land in Nevada was just to distract and defuse – because a raid on the family’s ranch still is being strategized.
And there probably would be violence involved, said Richard Mack, the former sheriff of Grisham County, Ariz.
“I don’t think it would be possible” to launch a raid without violence, he told WND Monday. “I don’t the Bundys would lie down and be taken.”
He cited the threat from Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., that the confrontation was far from over, despite the weekend’s retreat by armed gunmen working for federal agencies.
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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
A “take no Prisoners” counter attack on the federal agencies
Do you mean like what McVeigh did? I know innocent children died and that was more than wrong, but his target was the federal government.
Here is the opportunity for the sheriffs in this country to stand up and protect their fellow citizens. If they don’t, where do the people turn?
It’s so obvious Reid has no fear whatsoever of being found guilty, or even accused, of anything.
My choice is made, no matter the cost or outcome.
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.”
I hope he remembers that in the shower. Bleeding from a prison rape.
I see that you're a Good German, Vermont.
Strange that you never learned that the government is abusive criminal liars in all your 16 years on Free Republic...
Thank you. So perfectly said.
It's the talk of the town in Utah and several Utah Ranchers are at the Bundy Ranch.
All who pay grazing fees to the BLM should stop. Today.
I believe the FEDS started squeezing his land requirements due to this
turtle, he had ALWAYS paid his fees then his land for his cattle became
smaller and smaller due to this turtle, then I also believe when you pay
RENT for the right to graze there are certain things the Feds are responsible for maintaining the land which were also NOT being done!!
He believes the state should get the fees and be responsible for
maintaining the land local gov is always closer to the land NOT THE FEDS!!!!”
But we stile the Southwest from Mexico, fair and square.
This land was once part of Mexico.
The law is in their mouths.
When are you going to get that this is a pile of Clinton's dung (1993), just like the lock-up of the Escalante Monument?
I think it goes back to the Northwest Territories. The Feds controlled the land and sold off some of it after it was surveyed. It’s my understanding subsequent territories followed the same pattern. I would look at that legislation by congress sometime around 1800.
The fed action at that time also finally defined the borders of the various states, some making overlapping claims.
When the FBI shot a mother while she was holding her infant at Ruby Ridge, then used military equipment to storm a community in Waco burning children alive and nothing happened, they figured they were given the green light to do anything they wanted.
Isn't that state an open-range* state?
If it is, then it is the responsibility of the owner to fence their lands to keep cattle out.
Did the BLM, who claim to be the owner do this?
This is completely avoiding the [very real and important] issue of whether or not the Constitution allows the federal government to own lands for purposes other than ports, forts, post-offices and "other needful buildings"; good argument can be made that ownership of lands which are not used for these functions by the federal government is illegitimate. — It is also avoiding the issue of how much land is claimed by the federal government (in excess of 80% in NV's case) and if such can be compatible with the idea of a sovereign state.
| * | In the Western United States and Canada, open range is rangeland where cattle roam freely regardless of land ownership. The practice was used in Mexico, and some argue it may have been the predecessor to the open range practice in the American West, which borrowed many other cattle raising techniques from Mexico. Where there are "open range" laws, people wanting to keep animals off their property must erect a legal fence to keep animals out, as opposed to the "herd district" where an animal's owner must fence it in or otherwise keep it on the person's own property. |
They did not aid and abet this.
Now you're just lying.
Government provides them with food, aid, and comfort, not to mention medical, jobs, drivers licenses, food stamps, welfare, etc etc., after Americans have be screamed, protested, petitioned and voted for relief from this epic country killing invasion?
BTW, If you’re represented Mr. beer, why were tens of millions of Americans totally ignored for the past several decades when they screamed, protested, petitioned and voted for relief from this epic invasion of our country?
Why are you evading the questions?
You joined Free Republic before the March for Justice, and you have the nerve to ask that question?
Did Bill Clinton serve a ten-year sentence for perjury?
Here is some reading for you.
CHAPTER 568 - GRAZING AND RANGING COOPERATION WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES IN RELATION TO GRAZING LANDS
It's late and my day's energies are expended.
Goodnight.
Would you send a SWAT team next door then?
Let’s see....
If I went to court and had to wait 20 years for the cattle to be removed I would probably be ticked and nobody could accuse the courts or me (BLM in the case of Bundy) of being impatient and overly aggressive.
The last time I checked the BLM employees and contractors have a right to be protected since they are not armed nor are they law enforcement. They are removing cows that are trespassing.
Government enforces laws by force. I don’t like all the laws, but I have to obey them or there are consequences. That is the rule of law - the same one I would love to see applied to Harry Reid. I don’t see any constitutional violations in removing his cattle nor do I see any issues with meeting threats of force (read the history of this story) with force.
The alternative is anarchy. The rule of law is wounded in our nation for many reasons, but it seems BLM was pretty patient in this instance despite all the emotion being transposed onto the story. We can either change the nation or it will break and everyone can choose sides, but I don’t see a consensus for when that will be. Some are still talking about solutions to our problems even if I am doubtful. Fact is, my property is still protected until the EPA continues for another decade like the last one.
To answer your question, I would have no problem with a SWAT team if my neighbor threatened anyone removing his cows from my property. My neighbor would be responsible for that - not me.
Greatly troubling, if true. (And entirely too plausible.)
Do you have a source for this?
Here is the opportunity for the sheriffs in this country to stand up and protect their fellow citizens. If they don’t, where do the people turn?
That will be great until another Bundy decides to shoot the Sheriff’s who show up to evict him from land he does not own. See how that works?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.