Posted on 04/25/2014 2:43:35 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
One of the militia groups who joined the effort to “protect” the Bundy family and their ranch from the armed Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rangers admitted they are prepared to use deadly force in self-defense in Nevada or Texas. Several militia groups have joined ranks to provide “protection” to keep the BLM from taking property from the Bundy Ranch, most of which operates on federally owned land.
Scott Shaw, co-founder of the Oklahoma Volunteer Militia says he is just an average American who goes to work every day and pays his taxes. He described his militia members as “every-day citizens ...We just have a strong conviction for freedom and liberty and upholding the Constitution. We are just here in case our court system fails us and we have to stand up to the federal government.”
In talking about the armed force of BLM rangers, Shaw described it as questionable. “If you’re there to get your money back that [Cliven Bundy] allegedly owes you, there are several ways you can do that in a court of law. You can put a lien on his property; you can put a lien on his cattle. If it truly was about getting back the back fees, why did [the BLM] take the cattle, or round the cattle up, which are the asset you’re going to sell--why would you kill several of those?” Recent reports revealed several cattle that were killed allegedly by the BLM during the standoff earlier this month.
Shaw affirmed that his militia members who deployed to Nevada were armed with a variety of military style weapons including AR-15s, AK-47s and others. They also include precision shooting firearms like deer hunting rifles and other military surplus items...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The Enclave Clause as ruled by SCOTUS in Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 531, 5 S.Ct. 995, 29 L.Ed. 264 (1885). I am aware of this as I was for a time, the acting Garrison NCOIC for Ft Leavenworth.
In 1885, the Supreme Court ruled that there were two additional ways in which the United States could acquire federal enclaves: (1) the states could “cede” legislative jurisdiction to the United States, and (2) the United States could “reserve” legislative jurisdiction at the time of statehood. The Supreme Court added that these “cessions” and “reservations” were not limited to Enclave Clause (”needful building”) purposes.
Since the land transferred to the US government per the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Article II Section 2 Treaty clause) and since the State of Nevada ceded the lands to the US Government as part of their Constitution, the lands belong to the US Government as a federal enclave. Further, since the lands are part of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area and needful buildings have been built on that property, the US Government owns and controls the land per Article I Section 8 both by fact and by SCOTUS ruling.
No more massacres of patriotic USAiasn.
haha....exactly like deer hunting rifles. I guess it's a bad thing to have any kind of firearm that can hit its intended target with any degree of certainty.
Don’t forget that SCOTUS also ruled:
1. It was legal for one man to own another as property.
2. It is legal to rend unborn babies limb-from-limb if they’re inconvenient.
I forgot one:
3. By not engaging in interstate commerce, you are engaging in interstate commerce.
I’m going down another stretch of the Yukon in Aug/early September and have bought a “bear gun”. Before a Freeper calls me out on that “bear gun” quote it’s gun expert Chuck Hawkes that says that not me.
Anyway, the gun is a Henry 45.70, lever action, tube magazine, 7.8 lbs and about 39 inches long.
The 45.70 round s very old dating back to circa 1883 and usually referred to as just “the government round”.
What I like is that the gun is light and short and quick to use plus the 45.70 round is up near the top of all guns in terms of big game impact.
In Bear Country, you want quick AND light!
two words for ya Waco Texas.
Any idea’s where I can get a print of picture in post number 3?
Right-click on it and select “Print picture”, or copy it to a thumb-drive and take/upload it to anywhere that prints pictures ... Walgreens, Wal-Mart, Kinkos, etc.
Thank you!
I’m very poor in these regards
You are a saint.
Pretty sure...my post was maybe 7 or 9 words long...
Thanks for reminding me that TURN on AMC is on tonight. =)
Your relentless repetition of the Enclave Clause having something to do with nearby Lake Mead is pointless and it is irrelevant. There are no buildings on this property. It is designated as Open Range. There is no military installation there, it's scrub brush and cows. That is it. The approximation of Lake Mead is irrelevant... if it WAS relevant, then the BLM would be claiming Lake Mead as a reason for their appropriation of the land. THEY NEVER DID. They claimed the land was to be taken as a preserve for a turtle. So I repeat to you once again, as everyone else has also done ad nauseum, your point is irrelevant.
I know this is pointless arguing with "tax control," since they are simply going to cut and paste the Enclave Clause plus the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo over and over again because that is what they are being paid to do. Good for them. BUT for those readers who are confused, just know this: 50 representatives from the 9 western states who are being treated as second-class citizens (aka, being treated as "territories" and not as "states") met last week to discuss how to get our lands back from the illegal & unconstitutional holding of the federal government. This process was started last year when concern regarding federal mismanagement of wild lands resulting in catastrophic wildfires that are destroying our wildernesses and resources reached a fever pitch. Now, after the Bundy saga, it has been dramatically brought to the forefront. If you are a resident of any of the western states, you should look into what is going on around you. You should be asking, "Why are states east of Colorado being treated differently from those west of? Why did they never receive their land held in trust while all the eastern & mid-western states did?" I recommend these videos as a primer on what is really going on and disregard this idiot "taxcontrol" who is a paid shill for someone.
Kirk MacKenzie, DefendRuralAmerica.org Presentation on Jurisdiction
Reclaiming Our Land - UT Rep Ken Ivory
MT Senator Jennifer Fielding at AmericanLandsCouncil.org
Stephen Pratt Speaking at WSSA Conference: Federal Lands Jurisdiction 1 of 3
Stephen Pratt Speaking at WSSA Conference: Federal Lands Jurisdiction 2 of 3
Stephen Pratt Speaking at WSSA Conference: Federal Lands Jurisdiction 3 of 3
At this point, taxcontrol, I am done responding to you. Have a nice life and seriously... you should look into a more honorable form of employment.
I realize that there is a shooter tendency that says "If some is good, a lot is better..." BUT! Start dialing back the powder load a grain at a time, load 20 rounds, shoot off a bench with a scope, measure the group for edge-to-edge dispersion, and watch your groups shrink.
Considering the range of possibilities that the Chicago Crook and his fellow thieves are promoting, a smaller group might well be a life saver.
It's good to know where you stand.
I’ve already been through that, going the other direction; group size decreased with increasing powder charge.
The charge I’m using is just under what the guys at the powder manufacturer recommended as the max safe load.
And the primers do indeed say “You’re right at the limit”.
But, it gets a 190 grain MatchKing up to roughly 2900 fps.
Interesting that you claim that they were not ceded to the US Government. Perhaps you missed reading this from the Nevada state constitution:
“Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States....”
I have provided via two articles in the constitution, SCOTUS rulings, court filings with regards to Bundy’s trespass and even the constitution of the state of Nevada documentation of the facts. Your response has been and continues to be to evade the facts, resort to name calling and repeating your undocumented personal opinions.
By “executive power,” John Adams was not referring to the President. (You can see the details of his lengthy effort in *Defence of the Constitutions* here: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/adams-the-works-of-john-adams-vol-6#toc [warning: the HTML takes a long time to download] ... searching for key terms “militia” and/or “sacred maxim”.)
He was referring to the need to maintain the democratic-republican establishment, that we duly-elect civilian authority -— the principle that the sovereignty of the people and decisions of that sovereignty, are exercised thru our duly-elected representatives assembled.
Instead of the authority over the exercise of martial power, being a clique of politicians, or a clique from society, or a clique of news criers, or vengeful individuals, or particularly “popular idols” (usually an agent of and/or funded by one of those syndicates).
The militia organization has usually been by town and/or county and then by state -— meaning, the militia are made up of the “citizen soldier” closest to the people who find some comfort by that proximity of heart and spirit, in addition to finding some comfort in the obedience of the militia, to duly-elected civilian authority.
“The obedience of the militia, to duly-elected civilian authority” is part of the meaning of the words, “well-regulated.”
“Well-regulated” includes among its concept and practices, both “well-trained to Arms” and adherence to duly-elected civilian authority.
It is unfortunate that we have fallen out of the practice of periodically assembling the town and/or county militia which would then demonstrate on the town commons or county [fair-] grounds, the proper keeping and bearing of Arms. Especially as that is something, that young people need to see -— the discipline and maintenance of it .
Perhaps you missed the principle of law that states an agreement entered into under duress is null and void.
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.