The Moral And Legal Defense Of Pointing Weapons At Bureau Of Land Management Agents
BY Herschel Smith
10 years, 7 months ago
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.
On May 12, 2014 at 7:50 am, RE Hafner said:
Counter force with force, it keeps the government goons in line.
On May 12, 2014 at 7:52 am, Billy Mullins said:
Hmmmmmm. Let me see.
1) Indicted for threatening a government agent by a government prosecutor via a grand jury that any prosecutor worth a pinch of salt could get to indict a ham sandwich.
2) Tried in a government court
3) by the aforementioned government prosecutor
4) with a government judge presiding,
5) and a government licensed lawyer defending you.
Yup, yup. Sounds like a perfect recipe for the accused receiving a fair trial and completely impartial justice.
NOT!!!!!
Every courthouse ought to have a special, designated door that defendants are REQUIRED to use to enter said courthouse. Above the door, deeply incised in the most adamantine stone procurable, is the legend, “Abandon hope, All ye who enter here.”
Looks like the rubber is about to hit the road and the organic fertilizer is about to impact the wind machine. Definitely going to separate the patriots from the posers.
On May 12, 2014 at 10:11 am, hal said:
No man or woman will get a fair trial when they are up against the Regime.
On May 12, 2014 at 10:30 am, no_tubes said:
If I could have but one wish, it would be that every person in this country knew about jury nullification. It’s the best weapon that the people can use in court against a corrupt government.
On May 12, 2014 at 11:30 pm, USMC69 said:
They ask potential jurors questions, that by their answers, will reveal if they are aware of this. If you are, you’re excused from jury duty.
On May 13, 2014 at 9:15 am, no_tubes said:
Yeah, gotta be careful not to tip your hand.
On May 12, 2014 at 1:41 pm, Tec Sg Beatty said:
Ladies and gents, allow me to inject: “Google” “Bruce Beatty Concealed Carry Ohio”. Mr. Beatty (that would be ME), totally outraged by the criminal acts of the city of Toledo, Ohio, which violated the Constitution of the U. S. AND the State of Ohio by enforcing ILLEGAL BANS on lawful, licensed concealed carry, was cited, tried and convicted for carrying a concealed firearm in a Toledo city park.
In other words, I was CONVICTED OF A CRIME FOR DOING EXACTLY WHAT I WAS LICENSED BY THE STATE OF OHIO TO DO, IN AN AREA WHERE SUCH CONDUCT WAS LEGAL. The municipal court judge totally disobeyed his Sworn Oath, disregarded the intent of the legislature AND the “Law of the Land” (Ohio Revised Code and the Constitution of the State of Ohio), and proved that he was unfit for office. He was shortly thereafter PROMOTED to Common Pleas Court Justice by former governor Bob “Tax and Shaft” Taft.
There is a saying that “all politics is local”; in this case, what we have here is just another hooker in the whorehouse known as “government”.
To make it short and sweet, WE CAN’T TRUST ANY OF THESE BASTARDS, EVER.
So this is where we stand: if we allow our “public servants” to act as RULERS, unaccountable to anyone but themselves, we deserve exactly what we get. I, for one, have drawn my “line in the sand”. Since these Constitutional traitors do not recognize OUR RIGHTS, I refuse to recognize their “authority” or “laws”. Let the battle begin.
And I still haven’t paid the fine.
On May 12, 2014 at 2:01 pm, Unsooper said:
Three things come to mind: The Federal law that it is a crime for a citizen to lie to a Federal agent though it is perfectly legal for a Federal agent to lie to a citizen or any civilian entity, the constant well publicized breaking of federal laws by lawmakers and law enforcement officials themselves, (Congress, the Senate, Federal agencies, Cabinet and Executive branch officials, even judicial branch) who are never, ever, ever prosecuted in any way and finally the hilarious way that “legal scholars” always say that it would be “illegal” for any State to vote to leave the Union.
And don’t get me started on the NDAA or the NSA and the Patriot Act.
On May 13, 2014 at 4:51 pm, Herschel Smith said:
It would appear that, as often happens, this article has been conflated with a subject about which I didn’t write, and it has been assumed that the intended subject was an assessment (by me) of the chances for success for said strategy.
Any prognosis for success relies upon knowledge of information not yet known, and circumstances that have not yet obtained. Therefore, any prognosis isn’t worth the breath it takes to say it. It would be wasted effort.
This article is about what I view as the best, most legal, most moral way to defend the gentlemen at the ranch, and the actions they took. Whether or not it is successful, we are obligated to present such a defense and to know that said actions were righteous.
While the Shakespearean drama in comments is always interesting (and sometimes amusing), this is intended to be a thinking man’s web site.
I welcome any additions to the case for defending the men at the ranch – legal and moral.
On May 13, 2014 at 7:34 pm, Kansas Bright said:
“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.”
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads.
It does not say any other roads for interstate commerce, it says POST roads.
Why the Militia is in the right is because they are the ONLY group the US Constitution, the supreme LAW of this land assigned the duties to:
– Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
– Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),
– Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
– “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.
It says so here; US Constitution, Article I, Section. 8, Clause 11: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.
The congress has the duty to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal when they are needed to enforce the US Constitution, the laws, or defend the people and the nation.
This is using private citizens in their own privately owned crafts to defend the USA and her people, this is using the Militia.
And here in Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
This clause is very straightforward. The militia of each state is taxed with the defense of the USA and her people, not just with the defense of their state; and they are to be armed with weapons that can repel any invasions bearing modern weapons of war. Congress is required to provide those military grade weapons for the militias.
And again here in Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.
The Militia is NOT the National Guard or Army, though the feds would love to have everyone believe that. The Second Amendment makes it very clear that without a Militia made up of the people we would lose our nation.
Stalin agreed. ”The United States should get rid of its militias”. Joseph Stalin, 1933. And they did.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition: The body of citizens in a state, enrolled for discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army.
Thomas Jefferson, 1st inaugural, explained that: “a well-disciplined militia” is “our
best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them”
and also a guarantee of “the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; [and] economy in the public expense.”
George Mason: “When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to
enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”
James Madison: “… large and permanent military establishments … are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.”
St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a
U.S. District Court Judge, wrote of the Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.” (The Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases, in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era.)
Tench Coxe, asserts that it’s the people with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”.
Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we
shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of
either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
Justice Story, Associate Justice, Supreme Court wrote: “The next amendment is: “A
well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.
It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them”.
Thomas Cooley: “The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this
provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called
upon. . . . If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and
they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose”.
George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
Edward Vieira: “The Militia of the several states offers everyone the greatest degree of equality with each other;
– Because EVERY able-bodied person from the age of 18 – 60 is the militia of each state.
– They, when trained, have the governmental powers to operate in every county, city, state, and throughout America when needed.
– Plus through uniformity; the Militia requires the same general duty of service from everyone – though not all will have the same tasks as they can perform different tasks according to their abilities.
This is why the Militia offers the best protection against rogue politicians and usurpation’s for those serving within the governments, “We the people” protect our own natural rights and hold accountable those we put into positions of power by enforcing
the US Constitution and each state’s constitution. When everyone takes a part in guarding the security of the neighborhood, county, city, state that they live in; plus the country when needed, it basically stops or makes it very difficult for a small body of people to take over this nation. (End Quote Edward Vieira, Junior “Constitutional Homeland Security” Volume 1, the Nation in Arms”.)
As Dr Edwin Vieira states in his book “Constitutional “Homeland Security” Volume 1: the Nation in Arms”: “That means “that NONE of those tasks are assigned to the Army, to a Navy, to a (constitutionally unknown) National Guard, or least of all to any unnamed professional police, security, or intelligence agencies of the General Government or of any state or locality. Rather, the Constitution’s explicit emphasis on the Militia as the preeminent forces by politicians of a garrison, “national-security”, or police state…
So those bound by Oath who “knowingly, with willful blindness, or in reckless disregard of the consequences of his/her action” votes for an unconstitutional act, bill, etc; when a “President or state governor refuses to veto it and instead executes it; or when a Judge, either of the supreme and inferior courts of the general government, or of any state knowingly declares such a statute valid and enforceable – each and every one of them violates his oath of office….
A remedy MUST exist for every individual harmed by each and every violation. That remedy MUST impose some personal liability on the violator – it being his own Oath or Affirmation he himself forswore. And that personal liability cannot be evaded by his or his cronies’ assertion of some ersatz official immunity”. End quote by Dr Edwin Vieira
Remember that the US Constitution allows for ONLY one official immunity, ONE.
“Using an “”implied power to create “official immunities” for themselves would allow them to negate the express requirement that “they shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”… “for any public official to create or assert a purported “official immunity’ for himself or any other official” is itself a violation of his Oath or Affirmation”. Dr. Edwin Vieira.
There is no statute of limitations on any act that breaks the Oath or Affirmation, or goes against the US Constitution, more importantly every unlawful deed that continues to remain on the books and is not destroyed by those reps who are later elected make them equally guilty of those crimes. As long as harm continues to those who are having those crimes enforced against them makes those reps, etc who let them continue guilty of every act committed. Take the Murder of those by SWAT teams enforcing unlawful acts – those reps that allow it to continue are guilty of those crimes – each and every one of them committed First Degree Murder – up to and including the Chief of Police, state representatives, governor; if a federal law being enforced then federal representatives, judicial branch and the executive branch – all of which could have vetoed that unlawful act.
On May 14, 2014 at 9:20 am, pase doble said:
Outstanding argument.