Posted on 08/22/2017 4:27:36 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
Edited on 08/22/2017 5:59:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
LAS VEGAS (AP) - A federal jury in Las Vegas has refused to convict four accused gunmen in a 2014 standoff with federal authorities near the Nevada ranch of anti-government figure Cliven Bundy.
In a verdict that stunned Bundy supporters, the jury on Tuesday acquitted Ricky Lovelien and Steven Stewart of all 10 charges against them.
(Excerpt) Read more at ktnv.com ...
Well, the founders sort of saw it that way. You may have heard of them.
I seem to remember that there were 50 ranchers in that valley and the Bundys were the only ones left.
If true, these people were forced off their own land, and this issue goes far beyond grazing fees on Bureau of Land Management administered land.
Didn’t Harry Reid want to build a solar “farm” on this land with some of his Chinese investors?
Oh, the ones who gave the Fed Gov authority to levy taxes in the Constitution? Are those the founders you were talking about?
The revolutionary war is not the law of the land in perpetuity.
Oh, the ones who gave the Fed Gov authority to levy taxes in the Constitution?
A Republic, if you can keep it.
BLM are not (supposed to be) LEOs, they are land managers.
BTW, how many millions of dollars do you have to fight them in court, because the FEDs budget is bottomless.
I just got back on and the trend yesterday as I posted on my blog was leading to this outcome.
Judge Navarro and Acting US Attorney Stephen Myhre, the prosecutor praised for his “leadership” in this case by Jeff Sessions, bore down and refused to allow these defendants a proper defense.
And the jury in its own way cried “foul”.
The BLM rustlers deserve some justice, don’t they.
That touches a nerve that compels my two cents' worth:
• It clearly should never happen to anyone
• The fact that it does should require a response
• We have a 2nd amendment EXACTLY for this kind of situation...it was supposed to be a mechanism to (a) provide self-defense at times when the government can't (invasion, crime, etc), and (b) to give the government pause when overreaching.
Our problem as citizens is that we have allowed 'overreach creep'. We have not reined in the power of the federal government, the courts, or even the legislature (though Congress is as guilty as any group over the years in handing the keys to the bank to the Executive branch and courts).
So situations like this one have arisen and continue to escalate.
This is exactly why Trump was elected... the responses to his efforts are exactly why we need him.
“For all those cheering for the defendants: Just how should the government enforce grazing on public lands?”
Where in the Constitution is the govt authorized to confiscate our land and charge us to use it?
Question: What is the proper response to someone claiming to operate under government auspices using power that does not lawfully belong to said government?
Question: What if they are in fact operating under government auspices?
Question: What if that entire “authorizing agency” is contrary to the Constitution?
...and these people took arms against American law enforcement...
BLM are land mangers, not LEO, and there is no reason for them to be armed.
The western US came to USA as federal land via Mexican American war peace treaty in 1848, the Louisiana Purchase in 1807 IIRC and last the Oregon Territory purchase from the British. It all started as Federal territory and in the case of most the far Western states, the majority of the lands remain Federal. In order, the largest land owners in the west are the Department of the Interior (BLM, USFS) and DOD probably followed by the various Indian tribes. Heck, the Navajo and Hopi lands combined are probably just about as large as New England.
“I don’t even know why we have federal law enforcement agencies.”
Yes, and while every “agency” from the ones that “regulates” hair and nail salons, are armed to the teeth, they seem to have an abiding aversion to the ordinary citizen being armed so that we can protect ourselves.
If they need to be armed, let the. And this is now Trump led government. You must be NeverTrumper, or Something. You should support America, not terrorists arming against it. Shame on you.
And the Whiskey Rebellion.
The vast majority of fed taxes and fees you pay today were never envisioned by the founders. They were instituted by 19th century democRats.
What are you, a fifth grader?
The only terrorist that day were fed jackboots. Shame on yourself.
I believe you and I agree on that lol. Maybe worded incorrectly but yes I find permits to protest unconstitutional
Thank you YHVH!! God bless the jury who would not be force fed beast food.
Perhaps that's the only way to get the federal government to respect the Constitution -- the preamble of the Bill of Rights reads as follows: THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
-- and among those declaratory and restrictive clauses
are the 2nd Amendment whose preamble is A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
clearly guarantees the right of the people to form militia, in part to ensure that the 10th Amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
) is respected.
So then, the question is: what should the people do when the federal government usurps power?
(Note: The traditional/historical punishment for usurpation is harsh, [usually death].)
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.