The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

[TheCurmudgeon]

I think there may be more to this story then meets the eye. A local talk show host Dan Morris,former official in the Reagan administration , reported that the head of the BLM was a former Campaign staffer for US Senator from Nevada Harry Reid. A strange left wing organization called the Center for Biological Diversity, may have been the organization that forced this situation to a head. This may be more about the radical ideaology and methods of our present administration and how they get past the rule of law. This may turn into another scandal for the administration and they surely don't need that.

Slap,

No offense, but I don't care what political agenda may have been behind the action. There were law enforcement officers from the BLM acting in accordance with a court order. The Rule of Law dicatates that, if you have a problem with a court order you appeal it, you don't surround the BLM officers with AR-15s.

[slapout9]

Slap,

No offense, but I don't care what political agenda may have been behind the action. There were law enforcement officers from the BLM acting in accordance with a court order. The Rule of Law dicatates that, if you have a problem with a court order you appeal it, you don't surround the BLM officers with AR-15s.

Curmudgy,
No offense taken. Discussion and disagreement with intelligent professionals is always good. My point is this was primarily a Civil Matter that is being escalated for Political reasons.

[davidbfpo]

Surely there are local criminal laws that apply to the man with an AR-15 and pistol, taking up position on a public road and appearing to be ready to shoot?

Elsewhere I have seen a man with what looked like a AK47.

[Stan]

Surely there are local criminal laws that apply to the man with an AR-15 and pistol, taking up position on a public road and appearing to be ready to shoot?

David, not on I-95 in the DC area

[TheCurmudgeon]

More from Social Media. Notice the less than subtle racial overtones indirectly attacking the President who is refered to as "Mr. Obama", not "President Obama". Divide and conquer.

[AmericanPride]

I think there may be more to this story then meets the eye. A local talk show host Dan Morris,former official in the Reagan administration , reported that the head of the BLM was a former Campaign staffer for US Senator from Nevada Harry Reid. A strange left wing organization called the Center for Biological Diversity, may have been the organization that forced this situation to a head. This may be more about the radical ideaology and methods of our present administration and how they get past the rule of law. This may turn into another scandal for the administration and they surely don't need that.

Slap, a couple of points: (1) this dispute is nothing special nor a depature from American tradition; (2) the Obama Administration probably could not care less about a single rancher's grazing rights after decades of violating federal law and ignoring court orders.

I've noted in previous posts the strong undercurrent of reactionary populism in American rural politics as well as the changing demographics of the country and the metropolitan "Otherness" of Obama personally and the federal government generally. This event highlights the collision of all of these moving pieces. Even George Washington suppressed challenges to federal authority.

I also highlighted your comment that really captures the mindset of the same people out there protesting the federal government's actions. Even though it's clearly documented that Bundy is the one with the radical ideology ("I don't even recognize the federal government", he says) and is the one attempting to subvert federal law, you still manage to find a way to build an explanation consistent with your ideological disposition. Obama is a pragmatist, for one, and his efforts are focused on the healthcare program and Russia; so I very much doubt he's at all concerned, aside from the publicity of the event now, with the seizure of cattle by BLM. The highest ranking political official to comment on the issue was Reid, one of the senators from Nevada; and he's not a part of the administration.

America is changing. And it's government and it's political priorities are changing to reflect that. That's not acceptable to people like Cliven Bundy and other anti-government radicals. In another post you cited the actions of communists and other left-wing radicals, but in American history, the greatest violence and subversion has consistently originated from rural right-wing political groups: the militia movement, the KKK, sovereign citizens, and so forth. The Tea Party is a legitimized wing of that movement and the Southwest is a tinderbox for a number of reasons. The real scandal is that the Republican Party allowed this faction to come to dictate its politics to the detriment of the GOP and the country.This rancher issue, and many of the other frivolous arguments of the Tea Party, is about one guy ignoring the law because of its inconveinence to him.

[slapout9]

Slap, a couple of points: (1) this dispute is nothing special nor a depature from American tradition; (2) the Obama Administration probably could not care less about a single rancher's grazing rights after decades of violating federal law and ignoring court orders.

Thank You Thank You!!!!That is exactly my point!!! The guy lost in court twice and he was being fined for it. Now I have severed enough court orders to know that the usual way to do this is to seize his bank account and or lien his property and collect interest on the fines and the Government was going to do this until. The Radical Left wing group Organization for Diverse Species filed suit 2012 and demanded that those really bad cows be removed by force and those really good turtles be protected under the EPA species protection act. That is what started it all. If it wasn't so dangerous it would be funny. Move the Cows to protect the Turtles.....Jeeeeeeezzzzz you cannot make this stuff up.

I've noted in previous posts the strong undercurrent of reactionary populism in American rural politics as well as the changing demographics of the country and the metropolitan "Otherness" of Obama personally and the federal government generally. This event highlights the collision of all of these moving pieces. Even George Washington suppressed challenges to federal authority.

I don't have a problem with this statement.

I also highlighted your comment that really captures the mindset of the same people out there protesting the federal government's actions. Even though it's clearly documented that Bundy is the one with the radical ideology ("I don't even recognize the federal government", he says) and is the one attempting to subvert federal law, you still manage to find a way to build an explanation consistent with your ideological disposition. Obama is a pragmatist, for one, and his efforts are focused on the health care program and Russia; so I very much doubt he's at all concerned, aside from the publicity of the event now, with the seizure of cattle by BLM. The highest ranking political official to comment on the issue was Reid, one of the senators from Nevada; and he's not a part of the administration.

I have a real problem with this. President Obama is the Chief Executive Officer of the USA. He is directly responsible for the BLM as it is under the Department Of The Interior, whose Secretary reports straight to him. He is the responsible Federal Officer not Harry Reid. I just wish he would do his job for a change instead of "fundamentally change America."

America is changing. And it's government and it's political priorities are changing to reflect that. That's not acceptable to people like Cliven Bundy and other anti-government radicals. In another post you cited the actions of communists and other left-wing radicals, but in American history, the greatest violence and subversion has consistently originated from rural right-wing political groups: the militia movement, the KKK, sovereign citizens, and so forth. The Tea Party is a legitimized wing of that movement and the Southwest is a tinderbox for a number of reasons. The real scandal is that the Republican Party allowed this faction to come to dictate its politics to the detriment of the GOP and the country.This rancher issue, and many of the other frivolous arguments of the Tea Party, is about one guy ignoring the law because of its inconvenience to him.

Yes it was a very dark time for America until a true hero arose named Martin Luther King who had the courage to speak the truth. And that truth was this that most white people did not support the KKK or racism. on another SWC thread I posted the exact source of that comment (think is was while he was in the B'Ham jail). I just like to point that out because for some reason that fact just always seems to get lost when there is a discussion of racism in the South.

[slapout9]

So everybody needs to watch this it is funny but has a lot of truth to it.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbULBAjstBA

[AmericanPride]

The guy lost in court twice and he was being fined for it. Now I have severed enough court orders to know that the usual way to do this is to seize his bank account and or lien his property and collect interest on the fines and the Government was going to do this until. The Radical Left wing group Organization for Diverse Species filed suit 2012 and demanded that those really bad cows be removed by force and those really good turtles be protected under the EPA species protection act. That is what started it all. If it wasn't so dangerous it would be funny. Move the Cows to protect the Turtles.....Jeeeeeeezzzzz you cannot make this stuff up.

I don't think it's about turtles, although environmental conversationism policy is an underlying factor. It's about the fact that a rancher has ignored court orders, failed to pay fines and fees, and has otherwise refused to comply with the law. The radical position in this scenario is the refusal on the part of Bundy to recognize and comply with the authority of the federal government. This is not a David vs. Goliath situation. This is about one man willfully ignoring the laws that inconvenience his desire to freely take federal resources for his personal gain. He's a through and through taker.

President Obama is the Chief Executive Officer of the USA. He is directly responsible for the BLM as it is under the Department Of The Interior, whose Secretary reports straight to him. He is the responsible Federal Officer not Harry Reid. I just wish he would do his job for a change instead of "fundamentally change America."

What would Obama's job be in this situation?

And that truth was this that most white people did not support the KKK or racism. on another SWC thread I posted the exact source of that comment (think is was while he was in the B'Ham jail). I just like to point that out because for some reason that fact just always seems to get lost when there is a discussion of racism in the South.

True or not, depending on how one assigns moral responsibility, but my point was rather that right-wing violence is often ignored or downplayed in American narratives. The "Other" - inner city gangs, Mexican immigrants, Muslims, left-wing radicals, and so on - however receives extensive coverage that frequently is out of proportion with comparable coverage. When is the media going to name the recent Jewish center shooter as a domestic terrorist? How quickly would he have been labelled a terrorist if he was Muslim? In 2009, Congress forced DHS to withdraw an extensive report on right-wing violence because it negatively reflected on conservatives, veterans, and gun owners (even though the FBI reported that right wing groups intentionally enlist members in the armed services specifically for military training to bring back home).

So not only is there a long history of reactionary populism in rural America, but there's also an equally long history of violence - and it has undergone various transformations as the country and its institutions change, but it remains in subtext. And not only is there this history of reactionary populism combined with a propensity for violence, but it receives priveleged coverage in American public conciousness and media.

One of the myths embraced by this ideology is the idea of an expansive, over-reaching, corrupt, metropolitan federal government repressing individuals in rural America through burdensome regulations and taxation. But the federal government has been in retrenchment for many years, and it's employeeopulation ratio has shrunk considerably since LBJ's Great Society projected started. As of 2012, that ratio is the lowest it has ever been since 1962. That year, there were 14 non-military federal employees for every 1,000 people. That number is now nine (9). That's a reduction of 35%! Other than expansion from 1967-1969, it has been in general decline. So the government, by this metric, is actually less capable of meeting its obligations to the population than in the previous 50 years.

So my interpretation is that much of this battle is about the transformation of America - it has been rapidly growing in its metropolitan regions and in the process is becoming more diverse in both demographics and politics - and the desire by the rural segment in holding onto its declining privelege. Hence the attack on social services and welfare perceived to be uniquely benefiting the minorities that make up a part of the metropolitan other at the expense of rural America (although statistically speaking this is a myth too). This is expressed on Capitol Hill by the Tea Party, which has outsized influence in Congress on the basis of our political mechanisms - but we're also likely to see growing resentment and confrontation in rural communities. I'm sure there will also be some level of radicalization to accompany it. The question is how much mainstream legitimacy will reactionary populism continue to receive?

[slapout9]

What would Obama's job be in this situation?

OK here goes.

He needs to do what he keeps telling the press he is going to do. Start using his "Pen and Phone."

1-Tell Harry Reid to stop calling the Rancher a Domestic Terrorist. The situation has calmed down because cooler heads prevailed and avoided what could have been a truly terrible outcome. Reid does not need to aggravate it.

2-Order the AG to do a complete review with recommendations for final resolution to the Court Orders and any other Due Process Matters.

3-Select a Republican to review and make recommendations to the accusations about Harry Reid's staffer becoming head of BLM with no experience for this position, other than working for Reid and the fact that the guy is only 35 years old, certainly a fast track there. And dicern if he was the one who actually ordered the raid on the Rancher.

4-There are also allegations of Reid's son(another reason for him to be quite) being involved with a law firm with interest in the property for Solar Panels after the Rancher is evicted. The Republicans should be involved with this review to in order to avoid the appearance of any impropriety by Reid senior.

5-Since the President is a Constitutional Scholar I am sure he will call Senator Rand Paul who has also brought up the fact that there are very serious Constitutional issues about the use and abuse of this so called Protection Of Endangered Species Act. I am sure the President want want this resolved in a fair and fast way.

This IMO is the Presidents job as Chief Executive Officer of our Country.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Surely there are local criminal laws that apply to the man with an AR-15 and pistol, taking up position on a public road and appearing to be ready to shoot?

Elsewhere I have seen a man with what looked like a AK47.

Nevada is an "Open Carry" state.

Nevada is a better place than most for Farrell because it is "an open--carry state." Nevada reiterates the right to bear arms in its constitution and does not have blanket restrictions on law-abiding citizens’ open carrying of firearms.

That’s why a dozen or so people who attended the March 27 Tea Party rally in Searchlight were able to openly carry firearms. ...

On the night of June 24, [Ferrell] holstered up his loaded 40-caliber Glock 23 pistol and proceeded to a sidewalk on Las Vegas Boulevard, just south of Charleston Boulevard, where he was certain he would be noticed by police. He was.

It wasn’t his first encounter with the law. While vacationing in Nashua, N.H., early last year, he was stopped on foot on the way to a bank by police who asked about his gun. Minutes later he was allowed to go about his business with gun in tow. Such is life in the “live free or die” state, apparently.

The Las Vegas Strip encounter was far more intense, with police arriving in squad cars and on motorcycles in a show of force, guns drawn. Farrell was handcuffed and his gun was confiscated, its bullets removed. Over the course of the next 23 minutes, Farrell invoked his right to talk to an attorney, told police not to touch his gun, and that he hadn’t consented to being searched and detained. He refused to answer questions about whether he possessed a registration card for the weapon, and invoked his right to remain silent.

Bottom line: He hadn’t committed any crime. After police ran a background check on Farrell, confirming his gun was properly registered, and finding that he also has a concealed-weapons permit and is not a dangerous criminal, he was uncuffed. He was handed back his gun but the bullets were dropped down one of his pants pockets and the empty magazine was placed on an irrigation box 100 feet away. He was ordered not to move until police drove away.

“I understand the need for officer safety,” Farrell said. “These guys have a tough job. But officer safety does not trump my rights. To stop me there has to be something other than the fact I have a gun. They shouldn’t have even taken my gun.”

In my opinion, Ferrell was wrong. The right to remain silent applies when there is a question as to whether you committed a crime. If he was confident he was within his rights, he should not told the officers what they needed to know. Absent straight answers, an officer has to assume the worst. That is what I would do.

See Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTrGD5JltK0

It would probably be felony assault if he actually rose up over the barrier and pointed the weapon at a police officer, but simply observing from behind the barrier is probably not assault.