And so it may be. The Feds have the equal opportunity to take it to court. Looks to me as tho' both sides are simply engaging in a game of "mine's bigger than yours." That needs ending before the safeties are taken off.
Backhoes being used to bury cattle the Feds are killing? Just a few years ago, the theft of cattle would have been meet with deadly force. Take a mans cattle and you take his livelihood. It can lead to deadly consequences.
This really depends on the State Statute, under which the local Sheriff gets his Authority. If that Statute sets up a Federal Constitutional Sheriff, for each County, in the State, Then that Sheriff IS the Ultimate, and Superior Law Enforcement Officer in that County, as noted by SCOTUS Decisions, and Precedent. Not all States choose to setup their Law Enforcement in this way. One MUST go look at the State Statute, and then at the Precedents, in State Law, to determine exactly what the case is, in THIS situation. As a NOTE.... Here in Alaska, ALL Law Enforcement is created by State Statute, and the ONLY Elected Law Enforcement Officer is the Governor of the State. He holds ALL the Law Enforcement Powers in his Office, and delegates those Powers, by Statute, to his Commissioner of Public Safety, who is Appointed, and confirmed by the State Senate. All State Troopers, by Statute, work for the Commissioner of Public Safety, and their Police Powers, come thru Him. City and Borough Law Enforcement are ALL subject to the Commissioner of Public Safety, and his Policies, by Statute. ALL LEOs in Alaska, MUST conform to the State Training and Policies as laid out in State Statute. So, up here, if the FEDs piss off the Governor, (which the BLM, and EPA, did last Fall, up in Chicken, AK) the Governor can direct his Law Enforcement Forces, to Arrest, Ignore, Provide , Stop, or Refuse to backup, ANY Federal Enforcement Action, except that of a US Marshal. Our Governor, in the stated confrontation, told the FEDs, that if they EVER held such a Raid, AGAIN, He would direct his State Troopers to Detain, and Arrest, the FEDs, on the spot, and he told his Commissioner of Public Safety, that He was to monitor, ALL Requests for Assistance by Federal Regulators in the future, and get approval from HIM, Directly, before rendering ANY Assistance, to such Federal Operations. He was one "Ticked Off" Governor..... ......
The Oath Keepers have now activated. The call has gone out. Oath Keepers, We need a presence there immediately to help prevent the feds sparking another Ruby Ridge or Waco incident in the Bundy stand-off. (read more at the link) Oath Keepers » Blog Archive » Coalition of Western State Legislators, Sheriffs, and Veterans Stand Vigil in Support of Embattled Nevada Rancher, Cliven Bundy ‘To Prevent Another Ruby Ridge or Waco” No military cammo, no open carry, no civilians interviews. They are going with a sheriff to help prevent bloodshed. Sipsey Street Irregulars: Oath Keepers to help with Bundy protest.
Fox news today - Nevada officials blast feds over treatment of cattle rancher Cliven Bundy | Fox News
Yes the Oath Keepers forums are quite active. I just hope militia members heading up there respect the family and stay the course the correct way. NO heading up there half-cocked and fueled on emotion only.
You nailed it! I just saw a youtube video of someone headed there and he was bringing heavy fire power. That is what I am most scared about. All it takes is one idiot and this could explode.
I think they have been battling it out in court for about 20 years. I have seen info on BLM and leasing for fracking in Southern Nevada. Not sure if the is the same area but it is something to consider.
as someone already mentioned ... heavy firepower is already there .... the Feds showed 4 of their snipers the other day .... this latest flare up? .... probably were at least 10 snipers ready to shoot ... that's conservative considering there's supposed to be 200+ BLM & FBI types around .... it would only take one spotter to mistake a cellphone being pulled for a gun and the bullets start flying .... the protest ends if certain folk are no longer around .... a convenient mistake ....
As to the rights and wrongs of this situation, my take on it is this: Right=sitting down at the table and reaching a legal/logical 'settlement'. Wrong=going off half-cocked and people getting hurt.
But you have to do it in a no BS atmosphere. Get the goons out of there, quit killing cattle, and negotiate a settlement. Too many places where government seems to be trying to create a SHTF situation.
Bundy, has been fighting the federal government’s attempts to shut him down for the last 20 years, is in a bitter battle that just took a turn for the worse. .The trouble started in 1993 when Bundy refused to pay the feds for the right to allow his cattle to graze on land that he claims has been in his family since the 1880s. His family actually owned the land before the Bureau of Land Management ever even came into existence; so how the federal government can now claim they own the land is a bit puzzling. “We own this land,” he said, not the feds. He said he is willing to pay grazing fees but only to Clark County, not BLM. “Years ago, I used to have 52 neighboring ranchers,” he said. “I’m the last man standing. How come? Because BLM regulated these people off the land and out of business.”
Look at this guy. I do not think this man would be considered a cool head. You know the feds have seen this video. You know they are expecting people like this to decend on the ranch. I think @Illini Warrior right something could get mistaken and shots will be fired.
His family may have used that land for generations, but can he show title to it? By what right does he use the land in question? Land grant? Royal decree? If he has clear title to it, then court is exactly where it should be, to clear his name and uphold his rights. If, on the other hand, they have simply used open land as their own, that does not make it so. We have problems with trespassers hunting on other people's land, just because " we always have before...." Though the new owners have posted it to" stay the h3ll out!". The real question is " who holds title to those lands? Nothing else really matters. As to killing cattle....that is very wrong. No assets of any kind should be damaged or distroyed before the case is settled in court. Otherwise, I think someone will die. Killing the cattle is a hostile act, no matter why.
Moto, I am not a government hater, but I am an advocate of a limited small federal government doing it's job as delineated in the Constitution of the United States. This megalithic monster we call a government now is unconstitutional, unsupportable, and way outside it's scope. It is to provide for the common good, not to claim title to land without recourse. I am a firm 10th'er.
Yup, just like Ruby Ridge. The guy was NO threat, yet they killed his wife while she held their baby. No threat. Government thuggery.