There’s already a law against obstructing a highway, which I linked to earlier.
There’s also a law against brandishing weapons.
What sort of law would outlaw people carrying guns in public, if they don’t threaten anyone with them? Would it outlaw the carrying of a gun within 100 yards of a government agent conducting official business, or what?
Are you sure you read the statute correctly?
My understanding is that the cattle grazing without paying crazing fees is actually a case of civil trespass, as too are the monies he owes the Fed civil damages.
Based on past evidence I’m not sure the Federal Government would have shown restraint toward Bundy if they had say, a court issued arrest warrant or if he had not paid taxes. The government is quite serious about arresting people for non-payment of tax.
I’m sure there is some misdemeanor of some kind Bundy could be charged with, but that’s true of a lot of situations.
That’s one of my biggest problems with Federal law enforcement, in their stance that an arrest warrant must be enforced immediately and with the “wrath of God” they’ve done some ridiculous things like shooting children (Ruby Ridge), or engaging in a siege/standoff where it is totally inappropriate.
Almost all local law enforcement outfits, if they know the subject of an arrest warrant is likely to be armed and dangerous in their home they will carefully handle the situation and wait for them to be out doing their business in public. With Koresh he literally went to town every week, it was nonsense to have that siege/standoff. With Weaver at Ruby Ridge he was already dug in, but that whole situation actually started with Federal entrapment (literally, you know Weaver despite being an asshole was in the right when he killed Federal agents and received no criminal sanction and some members of his family actually won civil awards from the government.)
Intimidation is a broad term. You could make that argument about anyone engaged in any form of civil disobedience.
Brandishing is pretty specific though, I don’t know that we’ve seen that with the Bundy supporters.
What I think you really had with the Bundy situation is a crowd “ready to riot” and I don’t believe the crowd itself was generally criminal despite being disliked by many. For that reason I think the Federal government made a decision, based on proper caution, to back off and not cause an avoidable riot over a civil dispute.
I believe I did, yes, it’s pretty simple. I can’t begin to imagine how one would craft a law forbidding the “intimidat[ing] duly authorized federal agents from seizing property in accordance with a legal order” that wouldn’t be either redundant with the extant law against brandishing, or a thoughtcrime.
The one gentleman from Idaho, already referenced in this thread, sure appeared to be brandishing.
The fact that I’ve seen no less than three different angles of photos of that one guy aiming, and none of any others doing so, makes me suspect that there weren’t a panoply of protesters pointing rifles, though.
I concur.
I’m not going to speak on Ruby Ridge or Waco, other than to say they were different situations, where hopefully lessons were learned.
I am still not sure about whether grazing cattle in defiance of a court order crosses into criminal contempt or not, and I can’t find an answer easily enough. You are absolutely right about the fines being only a civil matter.
Either way, the court has to have its orders followed, or we do fall into anarchy. This particular case was decided in 1998. 16 years is far from ‘immediately’. If it requires violence to get him to follow the order, when is it acceptable to finally use it?
I’m pretty sure he has a laundry list of potential misdemeanors and felonies by now. IANAL, but the RICO statues cover obstruction of justice, and require only two separate instances. It seems that his behavior could merit being charged under them if the prosecutor was particularly aggressive.
This thread got derailed quite a bit as Bundy said some stupid racist things, but I think we can get back on track now.
[
](Cliven Bundy Militia Set Up Checkpoints, Congressman Says | HuffPost Latest News)
Now he’s snubbing the local governments as well as the feds. I say that this is a situation that, if it actually exists, cannot be allowed to continue and should be ended as peacefully as possible but knowing that ending it is the priority and any other outcome is unacceptable.
Our governments must must maintain order and control over unelected thugs or we risk losing everything that this country has become; the good will go right out with the bad IMO.
It’s vaguely impressive to note that this was the way Mao Tse Tung started out on his Long March. He delivered “instant social justice” to people who wanted it. Oppressive landlord? Dead landlord. Villagers happy. Move on to next village.
The ideology is different, but the technique remains the same.
Cite?
What in my post (that you quoted in entirety) would you like a cite for?
Events continue to unfold. Bundy’s supporters are intimidating locals, made bomb threats to a hotel where BLM agents were staying, and came close to having a shootout with each other.
So Bundy and his friends are carrying guns around (some of them probably Evil Black Guns), criticising the government, spewing all kinds of hatred out of their mouths, and… Why haven’t they been arrested and silenced? Oh, yeah. This is America. You can do that here. Aside from Bundy’s acceptance of ‘welfare’ for a couple of decades, he also seems to have forgotten that the government he despises so much is the same one that’s not abridging his Constitutional rights.
Excellent article; thanks for linking it.
for your entertainment, Cliven Bundy, Constitutional Theologist (video)
and he wants your e-mail @ddy.
My coworkers mom is heavily into the Bundy stuff- she supports his position 110%. She is claiming on Facebook today that ‘the Feds’ have already assassinated two Bundy supporters. She seems hell-bent on a bloody standoff, of course from the safety of her own home far, far away. This lady has never met a conspiracy theory she didn’t embrace immediately and whole heartedly.
This is the link she posted: http://freepatriot.org/2014/05/13/video-feds-killing-bundy-ranch-militia-2-militia-members-found-dead/
Cliven Bundy leaves the GOP. He has joined the Independent American Party (paleocon).
Does anyone really care? Will the endorsement of an infamous welfare leech bolster the IAP to new heights of political power and presence?
No, it won’t.
There may be a handful of other Republicans who follow Bundy now that he’s no longer a golden child of the GOP. I’m sure many were offended by the rapid backpedaling after his racial comments. But that will probably be a total of, say, twelve people who leave the party.
It was a civil dispute. Once he violated the court’s orders it became a contempt issue, which has both civil and criminal implications.
So the North Korean strategy works, huh? Get enough guns and bluster, the government can’t do anything to you? It’s been how long now?
This really amazes me, the lack of rule of law…
Like I said, it’s merely taking our foreign affairs logic and applying it domestically. If negotiation is always preferable to the use of force, then that should apply to everyone, not just dictators. Kim Jong Un is not better than Cliven Bundy.