A Straight Look at the Recent Nevada Land Dispute

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: nenothtu

The Roberts court violated stare decisis. It was settled law that the well regulated militia was the national guard. But this is not a gun control thread.

You are correct that this is not a gun control thread, but there was a group claiming to be "militia" present for the Bundy debacle, and therefore the definition of what is a "militia" is relevant to the discussion. Because of that, I need a citation to the "settled law" that the National Guard is the "well-regulated militia" referred to in the Second Amendment. I have to look at the elements and the history of it, since I've found no reference to the existence of a National Guard at the time the Constitution was written.

The guard shoots at enemies in foreign countries. Posse Comitatus is there to prevent civilians from fighting the military. At least that is the plan.

By your own admission, the National Guard is allegedly under the control of the state Governor - unless, as I pointed out, they are "federalized", at which point they are federal troops, rather than a National Guard. Since when does an individual state go to war with foreign nations?

Posse Comitatus is there to prevent military abuse of internal citizens, not the other way 'round. It was initiated in 1878 after the abuses by Federal troops during the Reconstruction Era in the south, in order to prevent that from ever happening again.

Lately, it appears that it hasn't stuck very well.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: nenothtu

The Roberts court violated stare decisis. It was settled law that the well regulated militia was the national guard. But this is not a gun control thread.

You are correct that this is not a gun control thread, but there was a group claiming to be "militia" present for the Bundy debacle, and therefore the definition of what is a "militia" is relevant to the discussion. Because of that, I need a citation to the "settled law" that the National Guard is the "well-regulated militia" referred to in the Second Amendment. I have to look at the elements and the history of it, since I've found no reference to the existence of a National Guard at the time the Constitution was written.

The guard shoots at enemies in foreign countries. Posse Comitatus is there to prevent civilians from fighting the military. At least that is the plan.

By your own admission, the National Guard is allegedly under the control of the state Governor - unless, as I pointed out, they are "federalized", at which point they are federal troops, rather than a National Guard. Since when does an individual state go to war with foreign nations?

Posse Comitatus is there to prevent military abuse of internal citizens, not the other way 'round. It was initiated in 1878 after the abuses by Federal troops during the Reconstruction Era in the south, in order to prevent that from ever happening again.

Lately, it appears that it hasn't stuck very well.

The guard fights under authority of the DoD, which in turn comes from the commander in chief.

Seriously, you knew this, so what exactly is your mission here?

Just a FYI, the current episode of Tom Tomorrow's "This Modern World" features Cliven Bundy. It is not available on line unfortunately, so read it er where you read "This Modern World."

It wouldn't be much of a spoiler to say the strip involves Cliven, cows, illogical requests, and armed militia thuggery. Exactly like real life!

originally posted by: gariac

The guard fights under authority of the DoD, which in turn comes from the commander in chief.

Seriously, you knew this, so what exactly is your mission here?

That does not answer my question. Perhaps my question got lost in the wall of text surrounding it, so I'll ask it gain: do you have a law citation that I can look up to back the claim that it is "settled law" that the National Guard is the "well regulated militia" of the Second Amendment, per your claim?

a reply to: nenothtu

I'm not turning this into a gun control thread.

I'm my opinion and that of the 9 Robed Ones in Washington, the whole Militia debate ended for now and forever (or until they choose to take up another case some day) with D.C. vs. Heller and the establishment of Militia to refer to the entire United States population of ability to stand in defense of her. No Government anything required or desired. It risked everything and in a side note, the NRA didn't even want it to go early on. The 2nd Amendment Foundation and Gun Owners of America are the ones to thank for the riskiest victory in court that citizens have gotten in decades, IMO.

At this point though, regulation of weapons was deemed something for the lower courts to work out..but the right to own one was settled from what had not been established by any precedent in the years before that. That is why Heller was taken up by the Supremes for the creation of precedent.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Not 9 robes. Make that 5 robes versus 4 robes.

a reply to: gariac

Fair enough - neither was I turning it into a gun control thread. The specific question had to do with "militia", which IS germane to the thread - it had nothing to do with gun control.

I'll take your answer as "no, there is no citation to be had" then.

a reply to: gariac

'Close enough for Government work' may as well hang on their wall as a motto. lol....

The decision comes from the Court tho, and stands as the law of the land, not from a few. They simply get their say if they don't fully agree, as is their right. As it should be.

I suppose this kinda relates for the right of the people to have the guns out there in Nevada. Which they definitely did, as Nevada state law applies, of course. I'll leave off my thoughts of how they exercised those rights, but they definitely had them. (guessing that's how gun control came into the legal thread for this?)

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

He did get a posse together, and that's the problem. It was half way expected, but then he went and announced to the BLM that he had a virtual army coming from around the nation to protect him

Tell the feds you will have an army to stop them from carrying out a lawful court order, and they will have more than a couple cars coming out for support.

Suppose so, still to me this is more simple. How far back has his family been grazing this land? Now in the last decade or so the government is trying to remove that ability. Aren't all the rest of the cattle ranchers gone due to the same reasons?

I believe the BLM backed off because of their fear of what would happen in the US if there was an even bigger slaughter than Waco. Especially given the mood of many people currently.

As far as the courts orders and such go they do not seem in place to protect the people as much as the government. I have little or no faith in the courts or their orders any more than the feds.

He may need a bigger army though. Road trip?

originally posted by: gariac

originally posted by: nenothtu
a reply to: gariac

Yes.

Lackluster.

Photo 1: Why are there gawkers standing around taking snapshots like they were at a music festival? Photo op. Nothing more.

Photo 2: One grenade would get them all, bunched up like that, and standing around like they were waiting on their turn in the latrine line.

Photo 3: Pretty cammies. Nice puffed out chests. Good targets.

Lackluster. That's what I said, and that's what I meant.

Boys playing men, with expensive toys. A Boy Scout troop could have taken them out with minimal training - if the Boy Scouts could get through the line of women them big bad boys wanted to put in the front lines.

Candy asses.

I would take great offense at having weapons brandishing me.

These people are crazy and need to be disarmed. They are not responsible gun owners. Further, these whack jobs are the kind of people that cause gun control laws. You will never catch me behaving like those goons.

Are you talking about the Feds?

Your description fits the Federal government to a T.

Besides how many times did the militia fire their weapons?

And how many times did the Feds fire theirs, oh , but they just fired their weapons at the cattle. And fired their tazers at the crowds.

My bad, you are right, they are "irresponsible whack jobs". Why should anyone stand up for what they believe in? After all daddy government has all of our best interests in mind. (EXTREME SARCASM OFF).

a reply to: nenothtu

All the feds are so arrogant they probably just felt no one would try to stop their rustling and someone did. Left them with the choice of instigating a great big massacre on prime time news and/or getting shot. I'm sure they'll be back.

Paiutes roamed that land since before recorded history, and took what they wanted from it. By your logic, the Paiutes can go in any time they like and just eat steak off of any cattle they find roaming there...

If I was Paiute it would be steak for dinner every night. My thoughts on the Native Americans is they never, ever should have let Europeans set foot off their ships in the first place.

a reply to: Bassago

I'm afraid we're not on the same side on this one. I won't say I'm against the people out there. I don't know them and I don't know their motives as a group or people. If being with Occupy taught me one thing, it's that trying to judge people through media reports is just a way to be entirely wrong. So I won't say that on any personal level.

I'd never stand with Bundy or his people though. Absolutely not. This isn't a decade old. It properly goes back to 1989 for the first mention in court docket records and 1992 for the first real hearings or activity. 1993 started the talk of cattle removal following Bundy deciding a fee he had paid for the same thing, up to that point, was simply not something he was going to pay anymore. Something about a tortoise...(and that is almost the odd 'huh?' type language the court uses for how it got brought in by Bundy when the BLM was just asking for renewel fee on his 10 year grazing leases).

I suppose it's possible that this is over, if only because it's a political year and politicians make America turn. Unfortunately. If not though, this will also go like Occupy did, I'll predict now. The first time on the dance floor was awkward. Either side was awkward and no one knew quite what to do or how they were supposed to be doing it. It showed, on both ends of that standoff.

The next time, the Government will come in numbers, not equal, but far beyond anything necessary. It won't be a challenge, but a containment of protest and the removal will simply be done.

The Government is funny that way..... Look at Waco and Ruby Ridge, since people continue to bring those up. Those both started as operations that were, seen in hindsight, hinky from start to finish. The guys DOING them likely knew (how could they not??) in both examples, things were hinky. Whatever came later, the start was wayyy out where the buses may still run, but not much further, to be sure. Despite the ability? They didn't do anything to finish it. Other Agencies took over.

Compare that to things like Elian Gonzales and similar high profile issues where court orders were black and white with public conflict of law and order to make them feel motivated. It's whatever it takes..and no one generally argues too loud as a fact of life and history. The people out there are in a bad bad spot in a lot of ways and I just hope no one, on either side, gets hurt over a commercial cattle herd and grazing lease disputes.

First of all Wrabbit, allow me to say, this is exactly the kind of work that drew me to ATS in the first place: Deny Ignorance.

Second, what do you think about the current situation developing? I saw that Bassago was talking about more folks going out to the Bundy ranch to join the "militia" effort, but apparently, according to a local Nevada TV station, there's concerns among the local population?

Concerns are growing about members of the militia surrounding rancher Cliven Bundy.

Democratic Rep. Steven Horsford, sent a letter to Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie about the safety of residents in the Bunkerville area. Horsford says his constituents have "expressed concern" over the presence of armed militia groups from out of state.

According to Horsford, his constituents say the militia have set up checkpoints where residents must prove they live in the area before they are allowed to pass and have set up a "persistent presence" along federal highways, and state and county roads. They also claim some have established an armed presence in the community.

Horsford told the sheriff that the militia are making people feel unsafe.

KLAS-TV Las Vegas Report

Seems to me this might provoke a confrontation faster than a few trespassing cattle ... sadly.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Frankly, I've been a little buried for the last 24 hours or so... What's happened in the very recent time, I'm not very up on. I'm certainly going to catch up here in the morning, but nothing now will or can change the history which goes back on this, IMO.

If anything...the BLM & NPS (It is two agencies, folks need to recall too I think.. two land areas in that way) can make things worse and dig deeper. This would be exactly the wrong time to do this, I'd say. Especially since they have a 12 month court order with no further public notice required. Public notice this time is what got Bundy issuing calls of a range war and the Sagebrush Rebellion Part II. It'll be 11 months before they'll have to post a removal in advance again.

They'd be smart to fade away, let people get back to their lives and earning a living back home, then just show up with an hours notice and a thousand men to remove the 900 cattle. That is something I could see the Government doing. Especially in Nevada. The actual court orders and language also say the word disposal, as well as capture and contain. Disposal was going to be auction in Utah when this operation started. That fell apart when the Utah Governor said No. That left them collecting cows they couldn't do much with anyway.

I hope the BLM doesn't do here what they do with some species in other herd control efforts. Again, Nevada is unique like no other place, for that to happen.

a reply to: ManFromEurope


I do not care what the rest of the world's opinion is about we Americans.

And if you purport to be speaking on behalf of the rest of the citizens of the world,
then I take it the superiority and haughtiness was not trounced out of you
by American servicemen during WWII?

a reply to: Wrabbit2000
according to Bundy, he was grazing his cattle on
the land in question since the late 1800 and
made improvements to the land.

a reply to: spirited75

Indeed... That's why I made this thread. I hope the material in my OP at least gives the legal end and what's been argued in court, to see what basis and reasoning was used to say it's not valid. The most informative of the bunch is the 1998 court documents and it's only about 6 pages but does a good summary through the court history.

What the source records which form the core of this thread say and what the media or newstainment people are reporting are not the same thing in some cases. In a few examples, they are different enough to be a story in itself at some point, I'd think.

a reply to: spirited75

we
spirited75 (probably born in 1975)
"we".......1975.....ww2 ended in 1945..... lets see here.... -30
oh my god! this man appears to be a time traveler! (or taking pride and credit for something that happened long before he was born)
he also seems to think that the soldiers in ww2 were all a bunch of douche nozzles who prided themselves on ignorance and went out of their way to look and act as trashy as possible
......not sure which is more disgraceful really

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Seems to me this might provoke a confrontation faster than a few trespassing cattle ... sadly.

There is no proof that it is true. All we know is someone said his constituents said, that is basic hearsay. I would wait personally for more proof of that before believing it. Video would be nice.

But, if the militia is setting up checkpoints etc as the article states then yes, this will bring about a full force confrontation pretty darn fast.

Bundy's cattle are meaningless and won't be an issue anymore. Checkpoints are unconstitutional - very much so. If these militia think they are standing up for the constitution by breaking it - I assume out of boredom? That is simply ridiculous. I'd be telling some miltia sissy's to shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

DUI checkpoints are also unconstitutional, however what the court ruled in the case of DUI checkpoints is that the end justified the means. I disagree with such a ruling, the end never justifies the means...

Our constitutional rights is not reliant on what the end is, not when it is the SCOTUS telling us that, or when its Bundy's militia. And if this is the logic being used by the Bundy supporters, that the end justified the means, then they are more wrong than I could have imagined.

When something is wrong, is it always wrong, and when something is right, it's just that.right.

That said, all of us are acting strange. Something is going on, on a level we cannot see. I have seen normal thinking people jump off some serious deep ends... this issue is polarizing us - pulling us to extreme ends of this issue. That alone should be frightening, it is to me...

Perhaps it is our own thoughts we need to be examining most right now - perhaps those most of all.

My love to all, no matter what stance you have taken on these issues.