Now That the Feds Have Backed Off, Where Does This Leave the Nevada Rancher in His Battle With the Gov’t?

‘The Door Isn’t Closed’

For now, however, a relative calm has fallen on Gold Butte and Bunkerville, the return of armed federal agents increasingly unlikely. But Washington’s decision over the weekend to cease its roundup operations does not mean it has abandoned its plans to exercise authority over Nevada’s public lands.

“The door isn’t closed,” Bureau of Land Management spokesman Craig Leff said after federal agents retreated from the area. “We’ll figure out how to move forward with this.”

Aided by armed militiamen, some of whom were reportedly in Nevada at Bundy’s invitation, the veteran rancher has won himself a brief reprieve.

But it’s unlikely he’ll win any meaningful legal battles in the near future.

As I stated in a post yesterday, "When I wrote the description for this video, I did my very best to stay neutral, and just allow the video to speak for itself." I am maintaining the same stance in providing this story.  The opinions coming from various legal sources, however, seem to say that Mr. Bundy may not have the grazing rights that he believes he does.  There are still many questions to be answered, such as the big one:  What is the government going to do now about the Bundy ranch situation? 

Last Saturday (April 12, 2014), we were just an itchy trigger finger away from what could have been a disaster for everybody involved.  Many lives could have been lost in a standoff gone very wrong.  Thankfully, the U.S. government decided to stand down.

So, how is the government going to find a way to resolve the dispute without a future blood bath?  All I can say is that we'll have to wait and see.  I can imagine that, for a very different reason than what Sen. Harry Reid said, "It's Not Over," we may still be on the brink of a looming tragedy.  Whether he is right or wrong, we would hope that the federal government doesn't want to make a martyr out of Cliven Bundy.  The timing would be somewhat embarrassing for Obama's administration due to the ongoing situation in Ukraine.  Trying to negotiate a peaceful resolution in the Geneva talks would make diplomacy a little more difficult if we had a violent resolution of our own disagreement over state sovereignty with a rancher in Nevada!  Just sayin'...

RELATED STORIES:

• VIDEO: What happens when We the People rise up?

• Sen. Harry Reid on Nevada Ranch Battle: ‘It’s Not Over’

• Is Harry Reid Involved? Seven Answers to Seven Questions You’re Probably Asking Right Now About the Nevada Rancher Situation

• Nevada rancher standoff turns on a states’ rights debate

*    *    *    *

Now That the Feds Have Backed Off, Where Does This Leave the Nevada Rancher in His Battle With the Gov’t?

By Becket Adams

Apr. 17, 2014 10:27am

From theblaze.com

Cliven Bundy

Federal agents waved the white flag Saturday and retreated from Gold Butte, Nev., releasing some 389 “trespass cattle” that had been rounded up as the result of an ongoing land dispute between rancher Cliven Bundy and the United States.

But as Bundy family members celebrate what they call a decisive victory in their decades-long struggle against the federal government, the legal battle between the Clark County rancher and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management is far from over.

“He’s still making these arguments about how the federal courts don’t have jurisdiction because the United States doesn’t own the land in question,” Dan Greenberg, an attorney and president of the Advance Arkansas Institute, a nonprofit that advocates for public policy based on the principles of limited government, told TheBlaze.

“He’s losing on all these claims,” Greenberg said, noting that Bundy’s arguments have already been rejected twice by the courts. “Unfortunately for him, his arguments – that he simply doesn’t recognize federal authority – will not be recognized in the courts. … The legal theory here that Mr. Bundy’s using is radical in its implications.”

~~~ READ MORE on theblaze.com ~~~

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

State plan fines feds $2,000 over gun rules

The States are finally fighting back to regain their sovereignty, and are trying to stop the Federal government from usurping their powers. The 10th Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights for an important reason: To keep the Federal government from gaining too much power over the States, and the people.

"Laws of the federal government are to be supreme in all matters pursuant to the delegated powers of U.S. Constitution. When D.C. enacts laws outside those powers, state laws trump. And, as Thomas Jefferson would say, when the federal government assumes powers not delegated to it, those acts are 'unauthoritative, void, and of no force' from the outset," Boldin wrote.

2 years in jail also possible for agent enforcing U.S. regulations on firearm

By Bob Unruh

Posted: March 13, 2010 ~ 12:20 am Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Wyoming has joined a growing list of states with self-declared exemptions from federal gun regulation of weapons made, bought and used inside state borders – but lawmakers in the Cowboy State have taken the issue one step further, adopting significant penalties for federal agents attempting to enforce Washington's rules.

According to a law signed into effect yesterday by Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal, any agent of the U.S. who "enforces or attempts to enforce" federal gun rules on a "personal firearm" in Wyoming faces a felony conviction and a penalty of up to two years in prison and up to $2,000 in fines.

WND reported just days ago when Utah became the third state, joining Montana and Tennessee, to adopt an exemption from federal regulations for weapons built, sold and kept within state borders.

A lawsuit is pending over the Montana law, which was the first to go into effect.

But Wyoming's law goes further, stating, "Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than two (2) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00), or both."

Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, who has spearheaded the Montana law, now describes himself as a sort of "godfather" to the national campaign.

He said the issue is not only about guns but about states' rights and the constant overreaching by federal agencies and Washington to impose their requirements on in-state activities.

He said South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska and Idaho also appear to be close to adopting similar legislation, and several dozen more states have proposals in the works.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

How to save the country ~ By Henry Lamb

From WorldNetDaily

By Henry Lamb Posted: October 31, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 The United States is on the brink of signing a new climate-change treaty that many people believe will be the mechanism that ushers in global governance. Global governance has been under construction for many years. Every new treaty in which the United States participates requires the surrender of a little more sovereignty. International treaties have influenced domestic policy throughout the 20th century, forcing the federal government to impose restrictions on individual freedom – restrictions that are not authorized in the enumerated powers set forth in the U.S. Constitution. For example, nothing in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution empowers the federal government to restrict the use of private property. The Endangered Species Act, enacted to bring the United States into compliance with several international treaties, gives the federal government the power to dictate what a private land owner may and may not do on his own land. This is only one of the more obvious examples of how a treaty is used to extend the power of the federal government beyond the limitations set forth by the Constitution. When the Constitution was written, senators were chosen by the legislature of each state. The power of the states was substantially diminished by the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, which called for senators to be elected by popular vote, rather than by the legislature. This loss of the state legislature's power to influence the central government is especially pertinent to the ratification of treaties. The Constitution requires two-thirds of the senators present to vote in the affirmative to ratify a treaty. The U.S. Constitution required ratification by three-fourths of the states. The Constitution, along with "… all treaties made, or which shall be made … shall be the supreme law of the land" (Article VI). It makes no sense at all to ratify a treaty that explicitly limits the power of government, and then ratify treaties that require the government to exercise power beyond those authorized by the Constitution. Patrick Henry cited the possibility that this situation could arise as a reason why he could not support the ratification of the Constitution. He said: "Sure I am, if treaties are made infringing our liberties, it will be too late to say that our constitutional rights are violated." (A more detailed discussion of this situation is available online.) [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Glenn Beck: The “Civilest of Wars” 10th Amendment

From Glenn Beck's show on May 15, 2009

The "Civilest of Wars" 10th Amendment - Part 1 of 4

Click here to see all four parts at Reveloutionary Politics digg story ~ Submitted by bronko52

Chuck Norris may run for president of Texas

On Glenn Beck's radio show last week, Chuck quipped in response to our wayward federal government, "I may run for president of Texas." That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state. [Read Chuck's column at WorldNetDaily] digg story