Breaking! Bundy Ranch Double Cross? More Feds, Cops, Vehicles, Equipment Arriving!

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Phoenix

You have a right to peaceful assembly, bringing and pointing guns at people isn't peaceful.

get it?

Is defending your self legal when a paramilitary force points them at you first, illegally? Including snipers on the hills?


EDIT: And, in Nevada it is LEGAL to carry firearms openly, unlike some of the totalitarian states that forbid it against the Constitution.

originally posted by: rockflier

“When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations.”

(emphasis mine)

originally posted by: rockflier

In this case, the appropriate local agency would be the County Sheriff Doug Gillespie and his organization. One of the more vocal contributors to this forum brushed this off by saying that local law enforcement could not be trusted because they are sympathetic to Bundy.

After years of Bundy thumbing his nose at the BLM, with Sheriff Gillespie at his side, I can see where the BLM might feel that the highlighted portion above, was not possible. So they went with plan B, using their own rangers, which is why the "may", argued in the 5 previous posts, was a viable option

Look, the BLM totally botched this. But all the nitpicking about the legality of it is baloney. They followed the applicable laws.

a reply to: Olivine

They followed applicable laws right up to the point where they established a first amendment area, shot cattle, buried them, destroyed infrastructure, and deployed snipers.
The court order specified to round up and detain cattle, nothing else. I think that you will find that Gillespie has no love lost for Bundy. He stayed out of it because he is a political Sheriff, not a real Sheriff.

EDIT: I will wager you are not from the Las Vegas or southern Nevada area. If you were, you would know more about the Gillespie modus operandi.

a reply to: rockflier

You do know the "first amendment zones" were expanded by GW Bush and the courts upheld them. I protested GW Bush every time he was nearby and simply ignored his "free speech zones."

First Amendment Zone

Then again, I'm not a gun toting moron, so I was not a threat to the public.

a reply to: Olivine

It is a federal issue, so the sheriff has no say in the matter. He is merely there to arrest civilians related to the incident. Bundy should be served by federal marshals.

Now when the feds take his deeded property for failing to pay the fines, then the sheriff will be required.

a reply to: rockflier

Carry a gun is one thing. Pointing it at somebody is another. You don't point a weapon unless you intend to shoot.

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: rockflier

Then again, I'm not a gun toting moron, so I was not a threat to the public.

The threat from you is not from weapons, or we "gun toting morons". I guess that 20 years as an Army Ranger taught me to stand up for what is right. The threat from you is cowtowing to obvious abuses of civil rights and acceptance of the "WORD" of the government. I too ignored GWB's zones, as they too were illegal.

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: rockflier

Carry a gun is one thing. Pointing it at somebody is another. You don't point a weapon unless you intend to shoot.

So, the Feds that first pointed weapons intended to use them, right? Look at the timeline G, the armed citizenry did not show up until 5 days after the appearance of the BLM paramilitary.

Also, you told me you are from this area, just a user of the facilities here. It gets old having out of staters telling us how to live and act. We already have been "Californicated" in Clark County. They have moved here because they like it then try to change things here to be like their old haunts.

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: Olivine

It is a federal issue, so the sheriff has no say in the matter. He is merely there to arrest civilians related to the incident. Bundy should be served by federal marshals.

Now when the feds take his deeded property for failing to pay the fines, then the sheriff will be required.

You are wrong. Read above about the SHALL in the Federal Code. I know, I know, you think that Gillespie would not have helped. Again, you do NOT live here and do NOT know about our local politics and the Political Sheriff.

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: rockflier

Carry a gun is one thing. Pointing it at somebody is another. You don't point a weapon unless you intend to shoot.

Not true. Pointing a gun is an excellent deterrent. Many a gun has been pointed to let someone know, if they cross a certain line, what the intention is. Pointing a gun has diffused potentially bad situations.

Des

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: rockflier

Carry a gun is one thing. Pointing it at somebody is another. You don't point a weapon unless you intend to shoot.

Unless....

You would be executing a psych-tactic.

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: rockflier

Carry a gun is one thing. Pointing it at somebody is another. You don't point a weapon unless you intend to shoot.

naw...where else are you going to go when someone just doesn't get the magic of please...?

a reply to: Danbones

That word is not in the vocabulary of Federal agencies. They only know "You will, or else".

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: rockflier

Carry a gun is one thing. Pointing it at somebody is another. You don't point a weapon unless you intend to shoot.

Now, if I show up with one of these, I could see them being worried.

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: Olivine

It is a federal issue, so the sheriff has no say in the matter. He is merely there to arrest civilians related to the incident. Bundy should be served by federal marshals.

Now when the feds take his deeded property for failing to pay the fines, then the sheriff will be required.

We finally agree on something. THIS is the way it should be handled IF they are smart enough to do so.

It does not make it right, but at least it is smart.


EDIT: It just struck me, are you from California?

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Phoenix

You have a right to peaceful assembly, bringing and pointing guns at people isn't peaceful.

get it?

i assume that you have some sort of photographic evidence to back your assertion that protesters were pointing guns at the brownshirts from the BLM...

if not, i'd kindly request that you refrain from perpetuating the baseless assertion that it happened.

originally posted by: gariac
You do know the "first amendment zones" were expanded by GW Bush and the courts upheld them. I protested GW Bush every time he was nearby and simply ignored his "free speech zones."

"bush did it"

brilliant answer....it doesn't matter who did it...it doesn't make it any less illegal...

Then again, I'm not a gun toting moron, so I was not a threat to the public.

well, you're not one with a gun, anyway....

simply owning, or carrying a gun, DOES NOT make you a threat to public safety....would you kindly cease this incessant use of hyperbole? it's quite tiresome..

originally posted by: gariac
It is a federal issue, so the sheriff has no say in the matter. He is merely there to arrest civilians related to the incident. Bundy should be served by federal marshals.

actually, i believe if the sheriff decided to intervene, the federal agents would have to defer to his authority, as it exceeds theirs..

Now when the feds take his deeded property for failing to pay the fines, then the sheriff will be required.

if the sheriff intervened, i don't believe it would come to that..

originally posted by: gariac
Carry a gun is one thing. Pointing it at somebody is another. You don't point a weapon unless you intend to shoot.

so earlier, you say that simply carrying a gun, makes one a threat to the public...now it's ok...which is it?

i'm also assuming that you too, have some photographic evidence to support the assertion that protestors were pointing weapons at the BLM brownshirts....

if so, by all means, post it up...