From David Codrea, there is this.

The 8 News NOW I-Team has learned that FBI agents have started an investigation into the events surrounding a potentially deadly showdown one month ago surrounding rancher Cliven Bundy.

It is one thing for Cliven Bundy and his supporters to square off against an assortment of Bureau of Land Management employees. It is quite another when the FBI enters the picture, and that is exactly what has happened.

The I-Team has confirmed that FBI agents have launched a formal investigation into alleged death threats, intimidation and possible weapons violations that culminated with a dangerous showdown on April 12, and the first people to be interviewed by FBI agents are Metro Police, starting with Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillispie.

Federal employees suspended their roundup of Cliven Bundy’s cattle, following a confrontation outside the BLM compound near Bunkerville. At the urging of Metro Police, Bundy’s cattle were released, but BLM’s new director announced the matter wasn’t over and would be resolved, one way or another. 

Last week, the I-Team talked with Metro officers who intervened to protect the lives of federal employees from the 400 or so Bundy supporters and armed militia members. Officers told the I-Team they feared for their lives that day because of the assembled firepower, and because many in the crowd had pointed weapons at officers, taunted them, told them they should be ready to die.

I don’t know about the details at the last of the report I cited, but it’s important that this issue be gotten right.  My readers know my views.  I believe that the federal government has two legitimate functions: (1) the common defense, and (2) building (only) the necessary roads and bridges to enable interstate commerce.  Beyond this, everything is unconstitutional and not approved by the wise founders.

But there is an audience who doesn’t think like me.  If the FBI is successful, some men may stand before a “jury of peers” for pointing weapons at BLM agents.  Since many juries are nothing more than a collection of imbeciles pooling their ignorance, discussions of the constitutional provisions or lack thereof for what the BLM did is a bridge too far.  Lives are at stake, and thus a simple and compelling argument needs to be pressed.

Fortunately, there is such an argument.  First of all, all men regardless of station in life are justified in self defense, and moreover, are duty bound to preserve life to the best of their ability.  This is a moral obligation on par with the most basic and important of God’s expectations for man.

There is also an equally simple and compelling legal argument for pointing weapons at BLM agents.  The irony is that it was given to us by the Supreme Court of the U.S., that other collection of imbeciles in Washington.  In Tennessee vesus Garner, we learned that even the Supreme Court believes that certain uses of firearms by LEOs is immoral.  Guns can only be used by law enforcement officers for the exact same reason that they may be used by civilians, i.e., for self defense.

This doesn’t mean that LEOs across America actually abide by Tennessee v. Garner, or that courts uphold the constitution.  But it does mean that right is on our side.  It is the BLM who came in pointing weapons at men, women and children.  If they are going to do this, it is not an unreasonable thing to expect that overwatch and security would point weapons back at the perpetrators to ensure their own safety.

There are those who may say that Cliven Bundy was a criminal, and some jurors might be in that very pool.  I disagree, but that’s not the point.  The men, women and children who were there were engaged in peaceful protests, and nothing more.  The objection rings hollow.

When the conversations get complicated, when the lawyers cite regulation until the faces of jurors are confused, when the media is perplexed or going along with the administration talking points, and when perhaps even your own folk become disillisioned and confused, we need to keep pressing this simple, compelling, morally upstanding position.  Weapons were pointed at BLM agents because the men there had to protect the lives of the people under their charge.  God approves, and even the stolid Supreme Court has recognized this fundamental right.

No backing up, no surrender, no losing focus on the point.  Say it again and again, indefatigable as it were, and without rest for your opponents.  The legal defense doesn’t need to be any more complicated than that.  We (and the lawyers defending these men) just need to be disciplined enough to pull it off.