Gov. & Cattle

[Enoch the Red]

Are we talking about the same police that uses SWAT teams and shoot-first tactics when trying to arrest petty drug dealers? Uses of force that I don't recall people on the right complaining about. Hypocrisy aside, law enforcement must not only enforce the law but also be seen as enforcing the law. Otherwise, the entire legal system loses legitimacy. Negotiating with a criminal in order to limit violence or waiting until the criminal is not in a crowded area is one thing. Simply refusing to enforce the law because of the possibility of violence is quite another.

I know of several self-proclaimed conservatives who are very worried about the increasing militarization of the police.

Are those really criteria you want to be employing when deciding whether to use force against law-breakers? Might as well abandon all operations against gangs; they cost a fortune and the gangs aren't exactly on the verge of conquering the US.

I'm at something of a loss, but seeing as how you had it in bold I'll assume that you actually took the time to read it. So let's take a look at it again:

"I don't think there are many sane individuals who would consider this situation worth violence on either side, let alone the monetary costs of the operation itself. This man poses no existential threat to the US Government, the state of Nevada, or his neighbors. I don't think a boot heel is necessary."

First sentence - I think most people would agree that cattle trespassing on federal land isn't worth loss of life, let alone the costs involved for a month long cattle roundup under armed guard. I absolutely would prefer it if the government figured in the various costs of enforcing laws into the equation when deciding the appropriate response and enforcement. We could spend billions of dollars hunting down and murdering habitual traffic offenders with targeted drone strikes - but I don't think you'd find much support for doing so. Unless you are going after people who double park. There's a special level of hell reserved for them.

Second sentence - I don't think there is much of a case that this man poses a threat to anyone, and probably would happily live the rest of his days if left alone as a good neighbor and member of the community. You keep attempting to associate what has happened here with gang activity, yet repetition is a poor substitute for facts, and that comparison just hasn't been borne out. As much as you seem to want to make this man out to be a violent criminal the evidence just isn't there.

[LittleFuzzy]

Are we talking about the same police that uses SWAT teams and shoot-first tactics when trying to arrest petty drug dealers? Uses of force that I don't recall people on the right complaining about.

I'll complain about them. But they're also not a good comparison. First (and I'm half throwing this in there just because I blame my six-page fight with GGT on your earlier comments) those drug deals are being charged with a crime. It's a criminal law action and criminal law does not enshrine the proportionality the way civil law does. Second, the police go in there with overwhelming force with the deliberate intent of overawing their suspects and hoping to intimidate them into not resorting to violence at all and with the negative guarantee that if there is violence, the suspect(s) should be the only ones getting hurt by it. The round-up of Bundy's cattle, OTOH, was a civil operation, it wasn't being engaged in by police (though they requested and received police protection to cover it) and it manifestly did not have overwhelming force. I don't think it would have been remotely possible to gather overwhelming force, particularly not when the protesters were at least partly hoping to provoke violent action for PR and media-management purposes. Superior force if actual fighting erupted maybe, but sure as hell not enough to overawe the militia protesters. Which makes it an excellent example of where force absolutely should not be used by police.

Hypocrisy aside, law enforcement must not only enforce the law but also be seen as enforcing the law. Otherwise, the entire legal system loses legitimacy. Negotiating with a criminal in order to limit violence or waiting until the criminal is not in a crowded area is one thing. Simply refusing to enforce the law because of the possibility of violence is quite another.

Criminal law, again, one thing though I've already noted that when confronted with mass behavior, it is incredibly common to let a whole lot of crime go. Maybe you single a few law-breakers out for an example, to provide your demonstration of enforcing the law but that's as far as it goes. Civil law is entirely different. Civil enforcement is discretionary and absolutely relies on proportionality. Private litigants may not be rational but it is expected that the government does make rat-choices and unlike private litigants, it is constantly compelled to do so. Spending more money than you will get back is not a rat-choice. The principle that people still need to see that the law is being enforced to keep them from breaking it does still apply, I will concede that, but it has a significantly lower priority and just as importantly, our legal system has a pretty deep well when it comes to legitimacy. It can afford to spill a bit here and there. Particularly since it can always visibly enforce the law somewhere or sometime else when it's not looking at a mob.

Are those really criteria you want to be employing when deciding whether to use force against law-breakers? Might as well abandon all operations against gangs; they cost a fortune and the gangs aren't exactly on the verge of conquering the US.

Is it the criteria I want employed for civil law? You bet your fucking ass it is. And it should be for you too, and anyone else who expresses concern about things like our massive government overspending. And I'm pretty sure that most of us here on the board are absolutely fine with abandoning the war on drugs which is almost always the primary driver behind most gang operations (both the gang's operations and the police's operations against gangs). Because it's expensive and is in no way worth the cost. Economically or socially.

[GGT]

The BLM engaged in a lawful attempt to seize property, they were opposed by a mostly₁ legal protest by militia-types, and the BLM backed down, at least temporarily. Some militia have left, others are lingering, in expectation of further federal action or to visibly support Bundy's grandstanding. You view this with alarm. I view it with apathy.

I view the scenario "with alarm" because that *mostly legal protest* entailed people wearing camouflage, parading their weapons (including long guns and sniper scopes) as a show of force. It only takes one of them (with a paranoid, conspiracy, soldier/battle mindset) to turn the scenario into a bloodbath. Many came from out-of-state (ironically, traveling on publicly-funded interstate roads ) because they wanted to Fight what they perceived as governmental over-reach.

No, it does not mean every tax payer and/or voter is a "constituent," not in general and certainly not wrt thoughts/feelings/concerns about this confrontation. And GGT, if you think ranchers support the BLM on this, you're nuts. They may not support Bundy and his call to militias but they and lots of others in the West have been fighting (and losing to) federal land management for the last 40 years. They are sore and resentful. Kindly take note that your suburban (Midwest, right?) values and opinions are not universally held.

Everyone in the US has a stake/interest in how this plays out -- that makes us all "constituents". It sets a 'precedent' on how we deal with disagreements, and what's considered acceptable civil disobedience....or vigilantism. Cattle ranchers have their own union/trade association/lobbying groups, and while they may have disagreements with federal policy or BLM, none of them support Bundy's tactics or strategies.

I have, in fact, mostly been ignoring what little reference comes up in the papers since Bundy made that racist diatribe, same as I only gave the topic passing attention until it came up on here.

So much for "media bytes", huh.

Since you decided to bring it up, though, I've gone back and looked. And what I've found is not much from the locals. Some complaints about the local sheriff "being AWOL," a lot of criticism of the BLM, a mention that the police in Mesquite keep getting questions from abroad about whether it's safe to travel through (they say it is) and a whole bunch of verbiage from a guy from the House of Representatives, like a claim that an anonymous 5th-grader came up to him and complained about Bundy's "sense of entitlement." His grandstanding is worth even less than Bundy's. I have not seen much of any sign in the press about the locals feeling threatened by the presence of armed protesters in the general area. It wouldn't surprise me if they did feel that way but I really don't give a rat's ass about whether people feel threatened by others who are still following the law. And neither should you. The only reason you do so is, again, these are activists on the opposing side, politically. I don't recall you caring about anyone concerned about WTO protestors. You dismissed people concerned about Occupy and actively supported them and they did far more damage (including to each other) than anything that has happened or is likely to happen in that area of Nevada.

Local businesses (hotels/motels in particular) lodged complaints about losing customers, and getting bomb threats. Families were worried about their kids making their way to school, going past armed militiamen on public roads. That's not "grandstanding".

Clearly, you don't give a rat's ass about "Law and Order", or how people interpret that in real life or non-violent civil disobedience.

Where are the statutes and citations that encompass all that? Primarily they're in the US Constitution under protections like freedom of assembly. I think people exercising their rights and being socially and politically active is a good thing. I wish you were fair and honest enough to think the same even when you don't like the views they espouse.

^{1 I'm willing to concede the claim that the protesters engaged in misdemeanor obstruction of justice: impeding the execution of a court order. No one appears interested in prosecuting this, which is not surprising. Mass misdemeanors are routinely ignored, armed or unarmed. It's just not practical to try and punish group behavior that way.}

In other words, you're all for Freeedom and Liberty....but only as defined by legislation and courts, and what prosecutors can/will prosecute? Again, I'll remind you that our branches of government are theoretically designed to represent, and protect, All people, and the Union as a whole. Those who disagree can't just use the 2nd Amendment, or their guns, to force their opinions on everyone else.

I regard your "apathy" as disconnected, and strange.

[GGT]

FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

[LittleFuzzy]

I view the scenario "with alarm" because that *mostly legal protest* entailed people wearing camouflage, parading their weapons (including long guns and sniper scopes) as a show of force. It only takes one of them (with a paranoid, conspiracy, soldier/battle mindset) to turn the scenario into a bloodbath. Many came from out-of-state (ironically, traveling on publicly-funded interstate roads ) because they wanted to Fight what they perceived as governmental over-reach.

Yeah. That's a concern with every protest. It was just obvious here.

Everyone in the US has a stake/interest in how this plays out -- that makes us all "constituents".

No they do not, no it does not, and no you are not.

It sets a 'precedent' on how we deal with disagreements, and what's considered acceptable civil disobedience....or vigilantism. Cattle ranchers have their own union/trade association/lobbying groups, and while they may have disagreements with federal policy or BLM, none of them support Bundy's tactics or strategies.

What precedent, a protest against government action without any violence (unlike Occupy)? Yeah, what an awful precedent. I'm pretty sure it was one set before this country even formed though. And once again, there was no vigilantism here. Anywhere.

So much for "media bytes", huh.

Ok. . . Not sure what you meant or were going with that.

Local businesses (hotels/motels in particular) lodged complaints about losing customers, and getting bomb threats. Families were worried about their kids making their way to school, going past armed militiamen on public roads. That's not "grandstanding".

I've seen a claim of an alleged bomb threat in a Channel 8 report (Las Vegas local news). As I recall, it indicated the police did not provide any support to the allegation. The SAME ARTICLE explicitly rebutted your attempt to inject Horsford's lies about checkpoints into the narrative. So yeah, that's lying grandstanding on his part and I strongly suspect on your part, since it was the only source I was able to find anywhere mentioning anything about a bomb threat at a hotel/motel.

Clearly, you don't give a rat's ass about "Law and Order", or how people interpret that in real life or non-violent civil disobedience.

No, I don't. And you only do when you can try and use it against politics you don't like. You're completely silent or opposed to it when it comes to the socio-political strata and causes you identify with. You're as much of a shill as Asmodian.

In other words, you're all for Freeedom and Liberty....but only as defined by legislation and courts, and what prosecutors can/will prosecute?

I often (though certainly not always) fall on the freedom of action side of things even when legislation, courts, or prosecutors disagree. While not a libertarian, I do have some libertarian leanings. But this doesn't even fall into that. No one got hurt. I really see absolutely no reason to get up in arms about activism where no one got hurt. It's insane and it's counterproductive to any kind of group-based civil political discourse. There is no better way to drive things INTO radical violence than to try and use government police power to shut down non-violent radical politics. But then, I suspect that like some of these guys, at some level you'd actually welcome radical violence to justify your attitudes

Again, I'll remind you that our branches of government are theoretically designed to represent, and protect, All people, and the Union as a whole. Those who disagree can't just use the 2nd Amendment, or their guns, to force their opinions on everyone else.

Odd, then, that you're on the side you are when as near as I can tell, the only person who got hurt was that sibling of Bundy's who got attacked by the dog and then tazed. You know that the Bundy's are among those who are supposed to be represented and protected right? (even if they'd object to it as being dirty sneaking federal action).

The government has so far acted responsibly (except, perhaps, toward their offices' budgets). I haven't called out their action or condemned it and as I've repeatedly said, I expect they'll still get the money owed. There won't be a final resolution because Bundy will certainly continue to graze his cattle against the court order(s) but there wouldn't be even if he stopped and willingly paid the fine, this is just the latest episode in a dispute between the locals in the West and the Feds that has been going on since '76.

I regard your "apathy" as disconnected, and strange.

You usually do. I prefer to think with my brain, rather than my other organs, and I also prefer to think things through rather than setting my first impression in concrete and that's always been the exact opposite of how you process things.

And for the Whiskey Rebellion reference, what exactly do you think the precipitating event leading to the abandonment of the original system of government have to do with anything in this thread? The EU now is more of a country than the states were under the Continental Congress and Articles of Confederation.

[GGT]

What precedent, a protest against government action without any violence (unlike Occupy)? Yeah, what an awful precedent. I'm pretty sure it was one set before this country even formed though. And once again, there was no vigilantism here. Anywhere.

The 'precedent' that armed protests are considered non-violent, peaceful civil disobedience. Hundreds of Occupy protestors were hand-cuffed, arrested, and faced jail and/or fines....they didn't use guns or militiamen to intimidate or threaten police.

Ok. . . Not sure what you meant or were going with that.

You said my interest in this was media-driven, but you're the one who stopped paying attention after Bundy's racist remarks.

I've seen a claim of an alleged bomb threat in a Channel 8 report (Las Vegas local news). As I recall, it indicated the police did not provide any support to the allegation. The SAME ARTICLE explicitly rebutted your attempt to inject Horsford's lies about checkpoints into the narrative. So yeah, that's lying grandstanding on his part and I strongly suspect on your part, since it was the only source I was able to find anywhere mentioning anything about a bomb threat at a hotel/motel.

Now you're saying Horsford fabricated complaints from locals (in your words lying) to defend your position that "nothing happened here"? It's not 'grandstanding' when Assemblymen or Congressmen follow-up on allegations/complaints, and ask law enforcement to investigate. Now the FBI is looking into the mess....because *it matters* when/if people use guns to threaten or intimidate, whether it's law enforcement or civilians.

I'm snipping most of your post, to edit the personal attacks toward me that don't address the ISSUES.

No one got hurt. I really see absolutely no reason to get up in arms about activism where no one got hurt. It's insane and it's counterproductive to any kind of group-based civil political discourse. There is no better way to drive things INTO radical violence than to try and use government police power to shut down non-violent radical politics.

Since when has it been considered "civil" or non-violent to bring guns or armed militia to a public protest? When did 'government' become the "radicals" inciting violence, instead of the radical fringe extremists (separatists) with guns? Seriously, name any other group or cause that could use the same militant strategy without the American public at-large saying it's dangerous or *wrong*?

The government has so far acted responsibly (except, perhaps, toward their offices' budgets). I haven't called out their action or condemned it and as I've repeatedly said, I expect they'll still get the money owed. There won't be a final resolution because Bundy will certainly continue to graze his cattle against the court order(s) but there wouldn't be even if he stopped and willingly paid the fine, this is just the latest episode in a dispute between the locals in the West and the Feds that has been going on since '76.

At this point it's not about the money Bundy owes, or the missed revenue for public land management -- it's about the principles of US Law & Order, jurisdiction, enforcement....and how to deal with extremist ideology that pits federal and state powers against each other.

And for the Whiskey Rebellion reference, what exactly do you think the precipitating event leading to the abandonment of the original system of government have to do with anything in this thread? The EU now is more of a country than the states were under the Continental Congress and Articles of Confederation.

The EU doesn't have anything to do with how the US chooses to operate. By design, we're a union of states that cedes some powers to national government. People are 'free' to disagree and protest.....but using weapons/guns, or threats of violence, aren't legitimate means.

To clarify...using weapons in the modern age isn't a 'legitimate' way to express political opinions, but it can be used to stoke another Civil War.

[LittleFuzzy]

The 'precedent' that armed protests are considered non-violent, peaceful civil disobedience. Hundreds of Occupy protestors were hand-cuffed, arrested, and faced jail and/or fines....they didn't use guns or militiamen to intimidate or threaten police.

No, they instead initiated actual altercations with police. And again, any protest is to be considered to be armed. Like it or not, this is a country where firearms are legal and somewhat widespread and unfortunately that means safe and conscientious LEOs have to assume that anyone might be armed. Particularly when facing crowds where they can't see what everyone might be doing. Every protest is effectively an armed protest and so that means nothing when it comes to whether it is peaceful or non-violent. Whether it is peaceful or nonviolent is predicated on action. This one was.

You said my interest in this was media-driven, but you're the one who stopped paying attention after Bundy's racist remarks.

I never said any such thing. I've been consistent in saying your interest is derived primarily from your hypocritical politics. I'll further point out that Bundy's racist comments were grandstanding on his part to maintain media attention when the only thing particularly warranting it, the confrontation between the Feds and the militia, had ceased with the BLM releasing the cattle. There wasn't and isn't all that much of a story after they did that. This thread didn't start until after that though so yeah, I stopped paying attention when it was clear there was no longer anything I cared about.

Now you're saying Horsford fabricated complaints from locals (in your words lying) to defend your position that "nothing happened here"? It's not 'grandstanding' when Assemblymen or Congressmen follow-up on allegations/complaints, and ask law enforcement to investigate. Now the FBI is looking into the mess....because *it matters* when/if people use guns to threaten or intimidate, whether it's law enforcement or civilians.

It's always possible he was simply spreading inaccurate hearsay. But I already brought up his claim that a 10 y/o came up and complained to him with quoted vocabulary and addressing a concept that you can just about guarantee a 10 y/o isn't going to use, even the precocious ones. It's possible there was a kid carefully coached by her parents and one of Horsford's aides but it would still be mendacious grandstanding if so and it would still be appropriate to lay it at his feet. Occam's razor strongly suggests that any complaints from locals were greatly exaggerated in form.

[quote[I'm snipping most of your post, to edit the personal attacks toward me that don't address the ISSUES. [/quote]

You could always cite your source(s), demonstrate that my suspicion is off-base. I think we all know you can't do that though. How do you get your information, GGT? Dread usually links news articles, we know OG will find and relay things from places like Reddit. When you provide links you don't have consistent sources (and frequently you just provide a search pattern and tell people to look for themselves) so how do you come across and gather the material you discuss on here? The material you've brought to just this thread?

Since when has it been considered "civil" or non-violent to bring guns or armed militia to a public protest? When did 'government' become the "radicals" inciting violence, instead of the radical fringe extremists (separatists) with guns? Seriously, name any other group or cause that could use the same militant strategy without the American public at-large saying it's dangerous or *wrong*?

Civil is the topic area, to distinguish it from other types of group-based political discourse, like town hall meetings, election rallies, etc. It's non-violent because there's no violence. That's kinda the definition. And I didn't say the government was the radicals. The militia extremists are the radicals. But either side is capable of provoking a violent response, that's not something only the radicals can do. I'm not going to venture to speak for the American public at large though. I'm not that arrogant. You shouldn't either but you always think your views represent those of America.

At this point it's not about the money Bundy owes, or the missed revenue for public land management -- it's about the principles of US Law & Order, jurisdiction, enforcement....and how to deal with extremist ideology that pits federal and state powers against each other.

Standing on principle in the face of violence is nothing but machismo posturing and I will support no part of it. One point is not a trend, there is no threat to the idea of "law and order" here. And if groups within the public think that the practices, policies, or enforcement thereof of the government is wrong then they can and SHOULD use their constitutionally-enshrined right of assembly just as much as their right to vote. Protesting does not harm this country. Trying to forbid or stop protesting does. And there's nothing extremist about the idea that federal and state powers vie with one another. That's supposed to happen, it's a fundamental part of federalism.

The EU doesn't have anything to do with how the US chooses to operate.

No, but that's not what I said, either.

By design, we're a union of states that cedes some powers to national government. People are 'free' to disagree and protest.....but using weapons/guns, or threats of violence, aren't legitimate means.

To clarify...using weapons in the modern age isn't a 'legitimate' way to express political opinions, but it can be used to stoke another Civil War.

And retains others. But that has nothing to do with this. No one has used weapons or guns, and the threat of violence was couched in retaliatory terms which is in fact legitimate speech no matter how much you shriek.

[GGT]

No, they instead initiated actual altercations with police. And again, any protest is to be considered to be armed. Like it or not, this is a country where firearms are legal and somewhat widespread and unfortunately that means safe and conscientious LEOs have to assume that anyone might be armed. Particularly when facing crowds where they can't see what everyone might be doing. Every protest is effectively an armed protest and so that means nothing when it comes to whether it is peaceful or non-violent. Whether it is peaceful or nonviolent is predicated on action. This one was.

No, every protest is NOT effectively an armed protest. Your conclusion isn't based in fact.

Civil is the topic area, to distinguish it from other types of group-based political discourse, like town hall meetings, election rallies, etc. It's non-violent because there's no violence. *That's kinda the definition*. And I didn't say the government was the radicals. The militia extremists are the radicals. But either side is capable of provoking a violent response, that's not something only the radicals can do. I'm not going to venture to speak for the American public at large though. I'm not that arrogant. You shouldn't either but you always think your views represent those of America.

You're using "kinda" definitions that doesn't have any relevance.

Standing on principle in the face of violence is nothing but machismo posturing and I will support no part of it. One point is not a trend, there is no threat to the idea of "law and order" here. And if groups within the public think that the practices, policies, or enforcement thereof of the government is wrong then they can and SHOULD use their constitutionally-enshrined right of assembly just as much as their right to vote. Protesting does not harm this country. Trying to forbid or stop protesting does. And there's nothing extremist about the idea that federal and state powers vie with one another. That's supposed to happen, it's a fundamental part of federalism

None of that justifies bringing weapons into the "civil debate".

Imagine what the US would look like...if every political fringe group used legally armed citizens, or heavily armed militias...in their pursuit of Free Speech/Freedom of Assembly and the 2nd Amendment -- to threaten federal agents, or police, in an attempt to thwart federal laws they don't like. That would at least be vigilantism, or at most anarchy.

[LittleFuzzy]

No, every protest is NOT effectively an armed protest. Your conclusion isn't based in fact.

My conclusion is that whether something is violence or not is predicated on whether acts of violence occurred. And you say this isn't based on fact. Ok. So violence necessarily includes nothing being violent. GGT, I'm going to have to ask you to stop being so violent with me. I really ought to charge you with assault for these pages of interactions.

You're using "kinda" definitions that doesn't have any relevance.

And here you've entirely given up on stringing words together with any kind of meaning.

None of that justifies bringing weapons into the "civil debate".

Imagine what the US would look like...if every political fringe group used legally armed citizens, or heavily armed militias...in their pursuit of Free Speech/Freedom of Assembly and the 2nd Amendment -- to threaten federal agents, or police, in an attempt to thwart federal laws they don't like. That would at least be vigilantism, or at most anarchy.

No, what justifies bringing them is the combination of individual rights they have recognized by the US Constitution. As for what the US would look like. . . first, it would not look like vigilantism because, once again, vigilantism is someone trying to privately enforce the law on someone else. Thwarting the law is the perfect reverse of vigilantism. And saying this is the road to anarchy could technically be correct. . . but I would call it a low percentage scenario. In a derogatory sense. Two events which would be significantly more likely (and which we all know are still so unlikely that we can be virtually positive that they will never occur) is that the EU will declare it will intervene militarily to protect the territorial integrity of eastern Ukraine and that you will suddenly transition into clearly-communicating poster relying on rational thought rather than emotional response.

GGT, imagine what the US would look like if every civil-law court order was enforced by over 100 BLM officials with police backing? We'd be worse than North Korea at least. At worst we'd collapse into anarchy and civil war. Not to mention bankruptcy.

[GGT]

My conclusion is that whether something is violence or not is predicated on whether acts of violence occurred. And you say this isn't based on fact. Ok. So violence necessarily includes nothing being violent. GGT, I'm going to have to ask you to stop being so violent with me. I really ought to charge you with assault for these pages of interactions.

Now you're nit picking about what "violence" means? Fact: threats of violence, including using weapons, doesn't have to result in direct harm to be fall into illegal territory.

No, what justifies bringing them is the combination of individual rights they have recognized by the US Constitution.

That depends on how states interpret the 2nd Amendment and legislate gun sales, registration, concealed carry permits, etc. I don't know the particulars of Nevada laws, or whether law enforcement can ask people to show their "gun papers" when they're wearing long guns and pistols openly, on publicly owned property....or if they have to be "in the act" of some other "criminal" behavior, or suspected of "illegal" activity first.

I'm not aware of *any* state law that allows civilians to aim/target guns at people who are using public land *legally*, such as driving on a state road or interstate overpass -- let alone at federal agents in the process of carrying out court orders. What is the Constitutionally protected "right" for that?

As for what the US would look like. . . first, it would not look like vigilantism because, once again, vigilantism is someone trying to privately enforce the law on someone else.

Newsflash: that's exactly what these militia "protesters" have been doing. They believe they have the "right" to use their ideology (state sovereignty) to trump federal laws, and interpret the US Constitution on their own (parting from SCOTUS rulings that give broad powers to federal agencies). They trying to ignore legislative and judicial decisions they don't like, and privately "enforcing" their own interpretation of laws on someone else -- in this case, federal agents, and other civilians in Bunkerville/Mesquite.

Thwarting the law is the perfect reverse of vigilantism. And saying this is the road to anarchy could technically be correct. . . but I would call it a low percentage scenario. In a derogatory sense. Two events which would be significantly more likely (and which we all know are still so unlikely that we can be virtually positive that they will never occur) is that the EU will declare it will intervene militarily to protect the territorial integrity of eastern Ukraine and that you will suddenly transition into clearly-communicating poster relying on rational thought rather than emotional response.

Personal attacks only make you look more irrational and emotional.

GGT, imagine what the US would look like if every civil-law court order was enforced by over 100 BLM officials with police backing? We'd be worse than North Korea at least. At worst we'd collapse into anarchy and civil war. Not to mention bankruptcy.

But I'm glad you brought up the EU and North Korea.....and what we think strong, cohesive national governance looks like, without becoming repressive or tyrannical. There were legitimate reasons for BLM using so many officials, not just because it takes a lot of manpower to round up cattle and herd them to enclosures for transportation....but because Bundy had promised (threatened?) an armed stand-off.

Bundy was afforded leniency for over 20 years, with plenty of chances to use the US legislative/judicial/political systems. He had his Due Process, more than once! Encouraging out-of-state militiamen and armed conspiracy theorists to join his Battle against teh evil Federal Government is radical, extremist, and even dangerous.

[Enoch the Red]

That depends on how states interpret the 2nd Amendment and legislate gun sales, registration, concealed carry permits, etc. I don't know the particulars of Nevada laws, or whether law enforcement can ask people to show their "gun papers" when they're wearing long guns and pistols openly, on publicly owned property....or if they have to be "in the act" of some other "criminal" behavior, or suspected of "illegal" activity first.

Gun papers? What are gun papers?

Nevada law plainly allows open carry of handguns or long guns in state parks, national forests, road side rest areas, etc...

[Veldan Rath]

Pfffft. Facts? What are facts when we can go on how we feel things should happen?

[GGT]

Gun papers? What are gun papers?

Nevada law plainly allows open carry of handguns or long guns in state parks, national forests, road side rest areas, etc...

That presumes the guns were bought lawfully, and registered/permitted appropriately. That doesn't explain if/how/when law enforcement can check and confirm that legality.

FFS, even Fish and Game Wardens have the "authority" to ask fishers and hunters (on public land) for their proper permits and registrations. But not gun-toters who show up at anti-BLM protests *that occur outside state parks, national forests, or roadside rest areas*?

[Enoch the Red]

That presumes the guns were bought lawfully, and registered/permitted appropriately. That doesn't explain if/how/when law enforcement can check and confirm that legality.

That presumes nothing and means exactly what was written. A person is committing no crime by openly carrying in the places you've mentioned. People who carry - openly or concealed - do not as a rule carry around the bill of sale for their firearm (assuming it wasn't a private sale), and many states, (Nevada included - outside of Clark County) don't require guns to be registered. The same is true of hunters, at least in the places I've lived. Game wardens might be interested in determining whether or not you have a tag, a hunting/fishing license, or the proper/legal hunting equipment for the given season, but that's generally the extent of it. You don't seem to understand the applicable state law, so it might be worthwhile to look into it yourself before you decide to have an opinion on the subject.

[GGT]

That presumes nothing and means exactly what was written. A person is committing no crime by openly carrying in the places you've mentioned. People who carry - openly or concealed - do not as a rule carry around the bill of sale for their firearm (assuming it wasn't a private sale), and many states, (Nevada included - outside of Clark County) don't require guns to be registered. You don't seem to understand the applicable state law, so it might be worthwhile to look into it yourself before you decide to have an opinion on the subject.

I don't have to "check" state guns laws to have an informed opinion about gun laws..to know that kooks and cranks try to manipulate those laws, by way of monied donations, that don't even reflect the majority of gun owners.

You're big on gun ownership, and gun rights, Enoch. Explain to me how Bundy's acolytes were within their legal rights when they used guns, and threats of violence, against BLM....and expanded that to the county's civilians?


BTW, you're wrong about Fish and Game permits. Wardens can demand proof of licensure/registration, that's why fishermen and game hunters carry their "tags" at all times.

[Enoch the Red]

I don't have to "check" state guns laws to have an informed opinion about gun laws..to know that kooks and cranks try to manipulate those laws, by way of monied donations, that don't even reflect the majority of gun owners.

You are right that you don't have to know every aspect of each state regulation to have an informed opinion about gun laws. Where you are wrong is assuming because that is true that you therefore are informed. Just because ignorance of a specific state's laws does not negate an otherwise informed opinion, that is not sufficient to make an otherwise uninformed opinion intelligible. By all accounts as well as your posting history you simply are not going to be taken seriously.

You're big on gun ownership, and gun rights, Enoch. Explain to me how Bundy's acolytes were within their legal rights when they used guns, and threats of violence, against BLM....and expanded that to the county's civilians?

Let's turn it around GGT - why don't you show us the relevant statutes that were violated, and how they were violated.

BTW, you're wrong about Fish and Game permits. Wardens can demand proof of licensure/registration, that's why fishermen and game hunters carry their "tags" at all times.

You are kidding, right? In every state I've been in tags are for animals, not for weapons. You don't carry a tag for your shotgun, you carry a tag for the deer you are hunting. Licenses are more general, they are hunting/fishing licenses, not licenses to hunt with a specific firearm. Granted that may not be universally true, (I'm uncertain of hunting laws in states like California or New York) but it is true for Nevada. These men weren't hunting or fishing ergo they have no reason to carry a tag, or be confronted by game wardens.

[GGT]

You are right that you don't have to know every aspect of each state regulation to have an informed opinion about gun laws. Where you are wrong is assuming because that is the case that you therefore are informed. That ignorance of a specific state's laws does not negate an informed opinion is not sufficient to make an otherwise uninformed opinion intelligible. By all accounts and your posting history you simply are not going to be taken seriously.

You don't have to take my posts seriously. But you can't call me "uninformed" and use that as an explanation of why BLM was doing what they did, or why the FBI is now investigating allegations of armed threats against federal agents.

Let's turn it around GGT - why don't you show us the relevant statutes that were violated, and how they were violated.

That's a hefty task....because you're essentially asking me to "prove" how/when state laws can trump federal laws. Sorry, but I refuse to use the same strategy used by Bundy and his gang. I'm more concerned about states acting as members of a national union.

You are kidding, right? In every state I've been in tags are for animals, not for weapons. You don't carry a tag for your shotgun, you carry a tag for the deer you are hunting. Licenses are general hunting/fishing licenses, not licenses for that firearm. Granted that may not be universally true, (I'm uncertain of hunting laws in states like California or New York) but it is true for Nevada. These men weren't hunting animals ergo they have no reason to carry a tag, or be confronted by game .

No, PA hunting seasons are licensed by the game target AND the human weapon --- rod, gun, bow, arrow. You've heard of fish-and-release, right?

It begs the question: can human beings consider their armed pursuits as not hunting animal/game when it's aimed at "government" people?

[Enoch the Red]

You don't have to take my posts seriously. But you can't call me "uninformed" and use that as an explanation of why BLM was doing what they did, or why the FBI is now investigating allegations of armed threats against federal agents.

I'm calling you uninformed when it comes to guns, laws, or gun laws. Though that list is likely longer and subject to change.

That's a hefty task....because you're essentially asking me to "prove" how/when state laws can trump federal laws. Sorry, but I refuse to use the same strategy used by Bundy and his gang. I'm more concerned about states acting as members of a national union.

I'm asking you to produce any kind of evidence supporting what you've been saying. While I agree that it is a hefty task, it is not because I'm asking you to prove how/when state laws can trump federal laws. No, it is hefty because I'm asking you to prove anything.

No, PA hunting seasons are licensed by the game target AND the human weapon --- rod, gun, bow, arrow. You've heard of fish-and-release, right?

You are being deliberately obtuse, as I have already said as much. The season has nothing to do with the specific weapon, it has to do with the type of weapon. No where on any tag or license does it have the make, model, serial number or purchase history of the firearm being used, at least not in any state that I've been to. Certainly not in Nevada.

[GGT]

I'm calling you uninformed when it comes to guns, laws, or gun laws. Though that list is likely longer and subject to change.

I'm asking you to produce any kind of evidence supporting what you've been saying. While I agree that it is a hefty task, it is not because I'm asking you to prove how/when state laws can trump federal laws. No, it is hefty because I'm asking you to prove anything.

The burden of proof doesn't lay in my lap. I'm just a US citizen, a regular person.....who thinks I'm seeing something "wrong" and waiting for "the law" to take action. It irks me that guys with guns can turn law on its head, and act like violating federal law is somehow Patrioptic.

You are being deliberately obtuse, as I have already said as much. The season has nothing to do with the specific weapon, it has to do with the type of weapon. No where on any tag or license does it have the make, model, serial number or purchase history of the firearm being used, at least not in any state that I've been to. Certainly not in Nevada.

You can't kill an animal with the wrong weapon, during the wrong season, in the wrong state.

[Flixy]

The burden of proof doesn't lay in my lap. I'm just a US citizen, a regular person.....who thinks I'm seeing something "wrong" and waiting for "the law" to take action. It irks me that guys with guns can turn law on its head, and act like violating federal law is somehow Patrioptic.

Well, that depends. If you want to argue what you think should be done according to what you think the laws should be, then you don't have a burden of proof for your opinion (in fact, the lack of laws being broken by what you think is wrong would be an excellent reason for you to think the laws should change). However, if you want to argue that guys with guns turn the actual law on its head (that is, not what you think the laws should be), then there is a burden of proof if you claim they actually violated laws, and made up laws or laws that should be there don't count. And since you've claimed it a number of times in this thread, while others repeatedly rebuffed you, with proof, while you've not shown any proof that you even might be right, then yes, the burden of proof is on you. It's not really worthwhile to discuss with someone who denies she's wrong but refuses to back it up with evidence and doesn't listen to proof opposing her. So, if you want to argue that something is wrong and think the laws should change to reflect that, be my guest, but then you shouldn't claim the law is on your side without actually backing that up when others rebuff you.

You can't kill an animal with the wrong weapon, during the wrong season, in the wrong state.

I think his point is that you can kill in the right season with the right type of weapon, i.e. during crossbow you can hunt with any legal crossbow, rather than just with one that's registered to your hunting license. And you can hunt with any legal firearm during gun hunting season, not just with one specific gun.

[Enoch the Red]

I think his point is that you can kill in the right season with the right type of weapon, i.e. during crossbow you can hunt with any legal crossbow, rather than just with one that's registered to your hunting license. And you can hunt with any legal firearm during gun hunting season, not just with one specific gun.

Which doesn't really matter because it is all completely tangential to what was originally being talked about - a topic about which she was also wrong. Which almost makes me think that was the point.

Hunting seasons, licenses, and tags have absolutely nothing to do with long arms or pistols carried openly for self defense.

[LittleFuzzy]

Now you're nit picking about what "violence" means? Fact: threats of violence, including using weapons, doesn't have to result in direct harm to be fall into illegal territory.

No, but they do have to run afoul of statutory law to be illegal. As I've gone over with you again and again and again, the law does not support you. It is, in fact, incredibly difficult to find illegal conduct arising from threats. And it pretty much does have to inflict harm somewhere (and not mere emotional duress either, something tangible). Can you cite the violated statute? It doesn't exist GGT.

That depends on how states interpret the 2nd Amendment and legislate gun sales, registration, concealed carry permits, etc. I don't know the particulars of Nevada laws, or whether law enforcement can ask people to show their "gun papers" when they're wearing long guns and pistols openly, on publicly owned property....or if they have to be "in the act" of some other "criminal" behavior, or suspected of "illegal" activity first.

You said right here "you don't know" but you're doing an awful lot of arguing with others who do know to insist to insist that you're still right somehow. Just to reiterate, no, law enforcement there cannot ask that. AFAIK, they can't ask that anywhere in the US. Concealed carry might be different but a gun license is not something you are required to have on you, it's something that is required to be on file. Consider it like needing a social security card for employment. And while I take it as a given that at least some of the militia there have not properly registered all their firearms with their home jurisdiction, it only takes a quick glance to see that Nevada doesn't require individual gun registration or even a permit to purchase at all so this is comment of yours is just so much wasted space. There aren't any gun papers to ask for (with the probable exception of concealed carry which is not at issue ehre) and there's nothing actionable in Nevada even if people had 'em.

I'm not aware of *any* state law that allows civilians to aim/target guns at people who are using public land *legally*, such as driving on a state road or interstate overpass -- let alone at federal agents in the process of carrying out court orders. What is the Constitutionally protected "right" for that?

I'm not doing your research on this one. Cite your statutes. Using a gun to aid in commission of a felony is an aggravated rider on the felony. Concealed carry requires a permit. And Nevada allows local jurisdictions to regulate the discharge of firearms but otherwise state law prevails and state law is very permissive.

Newsflash: that's exactly what these militia "protesters" have been doing. They believe they have the "right" to use their ideology (state sovereignty) to trump federal laws, and interpret the US Constitution on their own (parting from SCOTUS rulings that give broad powers to federal agencies). They trying to ignore legislative and judicial decisions they don't like, and privately "enforcing" their own interpretation of laws on someone else -- in this case, federal agents, and other civilians in Bunkerville/Mesquite.

No it's not. They impeded the enforcement of a court order (not allowing enforcement is a very obvious inverse of enforcement and thus cannot be vigilantism and you have yet to come up with anything resembling enforcement of some set of rules on any civilians in the area. The one thing that might have come close, militia checkpoints was explicitly rebutted by local news.

Personal attacks only make you look more irrational and emotional.

I don't see how any of that was a personal attack. You champion emotional response and immediate perception over rational analysis and intellectual investigation and you've acknowledged in the past (and asked us to ignore) your difficulty in communicating.

But I'm glad you brought up the EU and North Korea.....and what we think strong, cohesive national governance looks like, without becoming repressive or tyrannical. There were legitimate reasons for BLM using so many officials, not just because it takes a lot of manpower to round up cattle and herd them to enclosures for transportation....but because Bundy had promised (threatened?) an armed stand-off.

Yes. Their actions do not represent regular behavior or any sort of trend. They are an isolated point of response specific to temporary and local conditions. There is no predictive value in their response or any cause for alarmism or general fearmongering. And this also applies to the response on the other side. Sorry.

Bundy was afforded leniency for over 20 years, with plenty of chances to use the US legislative/judicial/political systems. He had his Due Process, more than once! Encouraging out-of-state militiamen and armed conspiracy theorists to join his Battle against teh evil Federal Government is radical, extremist, and even dangerous.

And yet still all quite legal and allowable. Just like most radical extremism, including the majority of it you champion since it arises from emotional or "progressive" impulses you share or sympathize with.

[LittleFuzzy]

That presumes the guns were bought lawfully, and registered/permitted appropriately.

Nevada does not require a permit to buy a gun. And even in Clark county, the only place in the state which requires any sort of registration (Bundy's ranch is in Clark, incidentally) it is only required for handguns not longarm firearms and only after ninety days' residence.

That doesn't explain if/how/when law enforcement can check and confirm that legality.

With Nevada law, there's really nothing for them to check. No papers required, not the sort you're thinking about.

I don't have to "check" state guns laws to have an informed opinion about gun laws..

Yes, you really do. 50 states, all with significantly different gun laws, and it is easy to look up the gist of the laws in each of those states. Not taking four or five minutes to pick up the bare minimum of the variations in gun law pertaining to Nevada is inexcusable. Still not something you're capable of since it runs counter to your insistence that your stream of thought ought to trump reality, but inexcusable nonetheless.

to know that kooks and cranks try to manipulate those laws, by way of monied donations, that don't even reflect the majority of gun owners.

You got anything to demonstrate that Nevadan law does not reflect the views of a majority of its gun owners? Or its citizens period? Attitudes in the West are not the same as the predominant ones in Muncie or South Bend.

You don't have to take my posts seriously. But you can't call me "uninformed" and use that as an explanation of why BLM was doing what they did, or why the FBI is now investigating allegations of armed threats against federal agents.

Your ignorance is not an explanation for why anyone does anything. It just means you're wrong in your interpretation of other peoples' behavior.

That's a hefty task....because you're essentially asking me to "prove" how/when state laws can trump federal laws.

No one's asking you to do that. We're asking you to demonstrate any knowledge whatsoever of the law you keep claiming is being violated. You keep insisting it is being violated when those more familiar with it than you are say that's not the case. We're asking you to show us how we're wrong in some more relevant field than your imagination.

The burden of proof doesn't lay in my lap. I'm just a US citizen, a regular person.....who thinks I'm seeing something "wrong" and waiting for "the law" to take action.

No, the burden really does lay on you. You're making a positive claim in denial of reality and repeated citations. The burden of proof from a logic perspective is on you. The burden of proof from a reciprocity perspective is on you. The burden of proof from any perspective that can apply to a discussion on a forum lies on you at this point in the discussion. You thinking something is "wrong" does not make it illegal. The "law" does not take action based on what you think. And you are far from a regular person. I have to believe that. I have to believe that a regular person is, if not more informed than you are, more willing to educate themselves and less stubbornly insistent on that their perception should not be be corrected by reality but rather than clung to for emotional reinforcement.

[GGT]

....No one's asking you to do that. We're asking you to demonstrate any knowledge whatsoever of the law you keep claiming is being violated. You keep insisting it is being violated when those more familiar with it than you are say that's not the case. We're asking you to show us how we're wrong in some more relevant field than your imagination.

No, the burden really does lay on you. You're making a positive claim in denial of reality and repeated citations. The burden of proof from a logic perspective is on you. The burden of proof from a reciprocity perspective is on you. The burden of proof from any perspective that can apply to a discussion on a forum lies on you at this point in the discussion.

According to litigation proceedings and judicial rulings....Bundy violated federal land management mandates, then violated court orders to pay fines/fees and stop grazing on federal land. The court made that decision based on statutes/laws/precedents/jurisdiction, etc. That's where the framework began --- surely you're not asking me to prove the BLM and the judges were all wrong interpreting pertinent laws.

Legalities in the aftermath are less clear since many protestors were armed, and *allegedly* threatened federal agents (and possibly some civilians) during their stand-off. The BLM backed off, out of concern for public safety, but that only resolved the situation dilemma temporarily. There are still armed individuals and militia with radical, extremist beliefs who, along with Bundy, think it's within their Constitutional rights to bunker down in Bunkerville....and fight teh evil fed'rul gummint.

You thinking something is "wrong" does not make it illegal. The "law" does not take action based on what you think. And you are far from a regular person. I have to believe that. I have to believe that a regular person is, if not more informed than you are, more willing to educate themselves and less stubbornly insistent on that their perception should not be be corrected by reality but rather than clung to for emotional reinforcement.

I could say the same to you: you thinking the Occupy protestors were "wrong" in how they assembled didn't make their actions illegal at the city or state level, let alone a federal offense.

And if I'm "wrong" in presuming it's "illegal" to threaten federal agents with guns, then why is the FBI investigating *the above* allegations in Nevada? FFS, Fuzzy, there's plenty of "evidence" (thanks to smart phone videos and the internet) to support those allegations.

[LittleFuzzy]

According to litigation proceedings and judicial rulings....Bundy violated federal land management mandates, then violated court orders to pay fines/fees and stop grazing on federal land. The court made that decision based on statutes/laws/precedents/jurisdiction, etc. That's where the framework began --- surely you're not asking me to prove the BLM and the judges were all wrong interpreting pertinent laws.

No, I'm asking you to prove that Reagan did what he had to do. The material you quoted is on Nevada gun control law. The material in your reply make no mention of or back-handed reference to guns, in Nevada, under law, or in any other context. Your reply might as well be talking about Iran-Contra.

Everyone, do take special note of how GGT went off on a completely different tangent and then promptly tried to insist our replies on that tangent were actually directed to very first position she staked in this thread, over a month ago. Classic alber-arguing and pretty positive proof that she has completely abandoned any semblance of discussion here at TWF and has decided to dedicate her posting on this forum to acting as a deliberate forum troll and general troglodyte.

I could say the same to you: you thinking the Occupy protestors were "wrong" in how they assembled didn't make their actions illegal at the city or state level, let alone a federal offense.

I never claimed it did. The content and intent of their protest has absolutely no relevance to any laws they might or might not have violated over the course of their protest. Ideological purity has no relevance even for mens rea much less technical statute violations.

And if I'm "wrong" in presuming it's "illegal" to threaten federal agents with guns, then why is the FBI investigating *the above* allegations in Nevada? FFS, Fuzzy, there's plenty of "evidence" (thanks to smart phone videos and the internet) to support those allegations.

Because investigation is the usual response to allegation? Being completely forthright though, the fact that the BLM backed down right under the eyes of the national media probably plays a part.

[GGT]

No, I'm asking you to prove that Reagan did what he had to do. The material you quoted is on Nevada gun control law. The material in your reply make no mention of or back-handed reference to guns, in Nevada, under law, or in any other context. Your reply might as well be talking about Iran-Contra.

Everyone, do take special note of how GGT went off on a completely different tangent and then promptly tried to insist our replies on that tangent were actually directed to very first position she staked in this thread, over a month ago. Classic alber-arguing and pretty positive proof that she has completely abandoned any semblance of discussion here at TWF and has decided to dedicate her posting on this forum to acting as a deliberate forum troll and general troglodyte.

That's the second time you've mentioned Alber, who hasn't posted in this forum or its iterations for several years, and tried to use that as "proof" that I'm not interested in the discussion. Seriously?

I never claimed it did. The content and intent of their protest has absolutely no relevance to any laws they might or might not have violated over the course of their protest. Ideological purity has no relevance even for mens rea much less technical statute violations.

Then stop harping against me, or my posts, and start addressing existing law.

Because investigation is the usual response to allegation? Being completely forthright though, the fact that the BLM backed down right under the eyes of the national media probably plays a part.

Enforcement agencies don't usually waste time pursuing allegations that, even when proven, aren't violating any laws (regulations, mandates, codes, ordinances, or whatever terminology you want to use). The BLM backed down because they didn't want another Ruby Ridge or Waco scenario....for the sake of a cowboy welfare cattle rancher.

[LittleFuzzy]

That's the second time you've mentioned Alber, who hasn't posted in this forum or its iterations for several years, and tried to use that as "proof" that I'm not interested in the discussion. Seriously?

Stop engaging in the dishonest bait-and-switch he championed and I'll stop bringing up his mendacious style of discussion.

And, just as an aid to prevent your continued attempts at derailment; Bundy's violated a court order, he has so far gotten away with it due to the legal support he's received from gun-nuts protesting on his property, the Feds are going to find another way to punish him, it's not criminal, Nevadan gun-regulations haven't been violated, and there are no check-points.

Then stop harping against me, or my posts, and start addressing existing law.

I have. Repeatedly. You ignore me in favor of what you sincerely wish the law to be in your imagination and insist I'm wrong. You have yet to provide a single shred of support for any of your claims about the law. As best I can recall, the only time one of your claims received support, I was the one who actually provided it for you.

Enforcement agencies don't usually waste time pursuing allegations that, even when proven, aren't violating any laws (regulations, mandates, codes, ordinances, or whatever terminology you want to use).

I'm detecting circular logic here. Or maybe it's just assuming your conclusion?

[GGT]

Stop engaging in the dishonest bait-and-switch he championed and I'll stop bringing up his mendacious style of discussion.

And, just as an aid to prevent your continued attempts at derailment; Bundy's violated a court order, he has so far gotten away with it due to the legal support he's received from gun-nuts protesting on his property, the Feds are going to find another way to punish him, it's not criminal, Nevadan gun-regulations haven't been violated, and there are no check-points.

Since you've got it all figured out....how are the Feds going to "find" another way to meet judicial rulings...when fringe groups are hell bent on dismissing judicial rulings?

[LittleFuzzy]

Since you've got it all figured out....how are the Feds going to "find" another way to meet judicial rulings...when fringe groups are hell bent on dismissing judicial rulings?

Lots of ways. The Feds have more people, more resources, more options, more power, more time, and a host of other advantages. Bundy's ranch is not a "black" operation. It doesn't function as a cash enterprise working under the table. It has lots of handles. I outlined three or four things they could and probably would do off the top of my head (and did so more than once) earlier in the thread and there's plenty more.

This is something of a pattern with you. You regularly complain that posters like Loki or myself don't provide specific remedies/responses but when we do you ignore we ever posted them.

More generally, well, there are lots and lots of options. I can't provide the specific ways they might respond without a specific situation or example but freezing accounts is common. Of course, so is ignoring it as not worth responding to. I can guarantee that most militia groups have at least some weapons they should not have (note, I'm speaking generally, not talking about the armaments seen at the Bundy ranch, though it's entirely possible there are some federally regulated "assault weapons" and the like there which shouldn't be). But it would cause more trouble than it is worth to try and seize them or go around arresting people for it.

edit: And note, you're engaging in another switch. I'm guessing you're going to keep doing this until you find something I'll make a concession on and then you're going to try and use that to assert you've been broadly right the entire thread.

[GGT]

Lots of ways. The Feds have more people, more resources, more options, more power, more time, and a host of other advantages. Bundy's ranch is not a "black" operation. It doesn't function as a cash enterprise working under the table. It has lots of handles. I outlined three or four things they could and probably would do off the top of my head (and did so more than once) earlier in the thread and there's plenty more.

That would probably mean more court proceedings, and another governmental agency to intervene (like the IRS) -- yeah, we went over those options already. The bottom line is: what's the end-game for folks like Bundy et al, who don't recognize the "validity" of the federal government in pretty much every aspect of this land dispute, and would use weapons against federal authorities?

More generally, well, there are lots and lots of options. I can't provide the specific ways they might respond without a specific situation or example but freezing accounts is common. Of course, so is ignoring it as not worth responding to. I can guarantee that most militia groups have at least some weapons they should not have (note, I'm speaking generally, not talking about the armaments seen at the Bundy ranch, though it's entirely possible there are some federally regulated "assault weapons" and the like there which shouldn't be). But it would cause more trouble than it is worth to try and seize them or go around arresting people for it.

Freezing accounts assumes he does business using banks or credit (instead of cashiers checks or cash), or that he has a mortgage on his ranch (instead of owning the deed). Putting a lien against his property wouldn't do much until he died, and even less if he's already transferred the deed to his heirs. At some point....real people will have to evict and/or confiscate....likely facing another armed stand-off. No, it wouldn't make sense to seize the guns, but the point is there *will* be guns, and enforcement agents will have to deal with that. Somehow, without an even bigger mess than this incident.

edit: And note, you're engaging in another switch. I'm guessing you're going to keep doing this until you find something I'll make a concession on and then you're going to try and use that to assert you've been broadly right the entire thread.

I'm not trying to be "right". I wanted to discuss the long-term brass tacks of dealing with armed extremist groups, particularly when they see their mission as a righteous battle against federal tyranny, or the Second Revolution -- and elected legislators are either calling them "Patriots", or looking the other way because it's just a few quirky guys in Nevada.