Harry Reid Calls Bundy Supporters 'Domestic Terrorists'

[Geaux4it]

This has been in the courts for several years. To the best of my knowledge bundy has lost every court case. He refuses to accept the court decisions. The government acted in a legal and lawful way.
"First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay. Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can graze and the number that can graze, and Bundy has ignored those directives. As a result, BLM has sued Bundy twice in federal court, and won both cases. In the second, more recent action, Bundy’s defense is that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question and therefore has no authority to regulate grazing. That simply isn’t right; the land, like most of Nevada, is federally owned. Bundy is representing himself, of necessity: no lawyer could make that argument."
Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy | Power Line
The bottom line is this, bundy wants all of his rights (to graze his cattle wherever he wants) and refuses to accept any of the responsibilities (paying for the use of government land). That is not how things work in a democracy.

He has repeatedly said that he would gladly pay to the State.

who cares what he would gladly do. the land is owned by the feds. the feds charge grazing fees. if he can't follow the law, then he belongs in jail.

if he lifts a weapon against the government, he deserves more than that.

no one cares what the gubmint hating wing nuts want.

Laws only stand to the extent we allow them to stand. It's not because we have too.

When tyranny prevails, we are bound by our core existence to rebel

-Geaux

 

[jon_berzerk]

He has repeatedly said that he would gladly pay to the State.

who cares what he would gladly do. the land is owned by the feds. the feds charge grazing fees. if he can't follow the law, then he belongs in jail.

if he lifts a weapon against the government, he deserves more than that.

no one cares what the gubmint hating wing nuts want.

Laws only stand to the extent we allow them to stand. It's not because we have too.

When tyranny prevails, we are bound by our core existence to rebel

-Geaux

the rules BLM set up are ridiculous and designed to

destroy the family business

 

[longknife]

What most reports don't include is that BOTH Reid and Senator Dean Heller were being interviewed. While the two didn't actually confront one another, Heller made it very clear he was going to do everything possible to see an investigation into the entire matter, to include the BLM and FBI coming in like Storm Troopers.

Of course Dingy Harry will do everything possible to stop it as it will surely uncover his footprints in it!!!

 

[Theowl32]

A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher. They want his land. The tortoise wasn’t of concern when Harry Reid worked BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore. Whittemore was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Senator Reid. Reid’s former senior adviser is now the head of BLM. Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests. BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area. If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor.

Those who say Bundy is a “deadbeat” are making inaccurate claims. Bundy has in fact paid fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM. The BLM arrived much later, changed the details of the setup without consulting with Bundy — or any other rancher — and then began systematically driving out cattle and ranchers. Bundy refused to pay BLM, especially after they demanded he reduce his heard’s head count down to a level that would not sustain his ranch. Bundy OWNS the water and forage rights to this land. He paid for these rights. He built fences, established water ways, and constructed roads with his own money, with the approval of Nevada and BLM. When BLM started using his fees to run him off the land and harassing him, he ceased paying. So should BLM reimburse him for managing the land and for the confiscation of his water and forage rights?

Government plans to euthanize hundreds of desert tortoises after budget cuts to refuge | The Raw Story - Linkis.com

Harvey Whittemore Convicted Of Making Illegal Campaign Contributions To Harry Reid



Folks, the democrats and the morons on the left have surely changed this country into our worst nightmare. You all think they are killing the constitution? It is already dead. All to the loud cheers of the absolute piece of shit hypocrites on the left. Listen to the interview and see what it is all about, as opposed what BSNBC is reporting. For fellow conservatives. Another case that the dicks on the left will celebrate and very relevant to this thread. The story of the Sacket family versus the EPA.

 

[jillian]

You don't even know what Sackett v EPA held.

and if the "dicta" (which you also have no understanding about) leans left, blame scalia since he wrote the decision.

 

[Theowl32]

Other than the fact that these fucking traitors on the left are wrong about the facts again in regards to the Bundy case, I noticed they did not address any of these blatant violations of the constitution that has been committed by the commie in chief in the white house. All while they chant about the constitution and violations of so called laws.

These are 10 violations that I have provided. Not opinions. Actual actions that are criminal by this fucking absolute scourge of an administration on our liberty.

They sit here and claim Bundy is violating laws, and it turns out he is not. They do not have the facts, cause again they rely on the media that are devoted to the agenda of driving socialism/communism as new government.



1. Convicted felon and Chicago real estate developer Tony Rezko’s purchase of land adjacent to Obama's house in Hyde Park, Ill. In 2006, Rezko sold a 10 foot strip of his property to Obama for $104,500, rendering the remainder of Rezko’s $625,000 investment too small to be developed and, for all intents and purposes, worthless.

2. Widespread voter fraud including voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, falsified documents, and threats of violence against Hillary Clinton supporters committed by the Obama campaign and ACORN during the 2008 Democrat primary election.

3. Protecting union interests over those of GM and Chrysler bond holders during bankruptcy proceedings, forcing investors to accept millions of dollars in losses in direct violation of bankruptcy laws, money to which they were legally entitled.

4. Preferential treatment given to minority and women owned car dealerships by Obama administration officials as part of the auto industry bailout program and the forced closing of a disproportionate number of rural dealerships located in areas that did not vote for Obama.

5. Purchase of Congressional support for the passage of Obama’s healthcare bill including the “Cornhusker Kickback”, “Louisiana Purchase” and having the Department of Interior increase water allocations to the Central Valley of California to secure the votes of Democrat Reps. Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa.

6. Lying to the American people by promising they could keep their healthcare coverage if they wanted to, when in reality tens of millions will be forced out of their current plans.

7. Directing the EPA to unilaterally set carbon emission standards, thus bypassing Congress which opposes Obama’s energy reform bill. For more information see my CFP article Forget Cap and Trade: EPA Regulation of CO2 Emissions Will Begin in 10 Months.

8. Obama’s policy of intentionally not securing our nation’s borders, in opposition to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution which calls for the President to protect states from foreign invasion, in an attempt to blackmail Republican support for comprehensive immigration reform. In essence, Obama is holding border states and residents politically hostage during a time they are being overrun by a narco-paramilitary invasion.

9. Department of Justice purposefully allowing some states to continue their disenfranchisement of military personnel serving overseas in direct opposition to the 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act, which was established in response to the more than 17,000 military votes that were not counted in the 2008 election because ballots had arrived after the deadline.

10. Fast And Furious Scam, The Administrations cover-up of guns sales to Mexican drug lords that lead to the death of an American citizen Brian Terry. The House voted to hold Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. for contempt of Congress due to the cover up and refusal to release documents by the Obama administration and Holders office.

Congress Unconscionably Silent on Obama's Constitutional Crimes - Reason.com

The left in this country are nothing more than know it all, annoying, hypocritical, brainwashed pigs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A man disobeys the law. An element of anti social, anti government, armed men come to the law breaker's defense. An element of anti Obama self defined conservatives conflate a simple issue into an hysterical rant based on flawed logic, prejudice and hypocrisy.

That about sums up the current crisis exploited by FOX, Limbaugh and the rest of AM radio 'philosophers'.

What's wrong in America today? A minority of people who wrap themselves in our flag, carrying guns and a cross interpreting law to suit their personal needs.

So did the men at the Boston Tea Party! Yes, morality, and ethics, the very essence of what let us win WW II is almost snuffed out by the likes of you!

The Revolution, which we hold so dear as the very beginning of a ONCE GREAT REPUBLIC was only fought by 15% of the population.... Chew on that for awhile, subversive!

The Revolution, which we hold so dear as the very beginning of a ONCE GREAT REPUBLIC was only fought by 15% of the population.

during the Revolutionary war active forces against the king was 3 %

another 10% actively supported them

20 % favored the the revolution but did little or nothing to support it

33% favored the king

by the end of the war

more Americans were fighting for the king than there were in the field against him

and 33 % blew with the wind and accepted whatever was to be

On the other hand, more Americans volunteered to fight for President Washington, and this nation, against the Whiskey Rebellion than ever fought in the Revolutionary War.

Oh, and the South lost, too.

 

[Katzndogz]

Keep fighting that civil war.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher. They want his land. The tortoise wasn’t of concern when Harry Reid worked BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore. Whittemore was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Senator Reid. Reid’s former senior adviser is now the head of BLM. Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests. BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area. If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor.

Those who say Bundy is a “deadbeat” are making inaccurate claims. Bundy has in fact paid fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM. The BLM arrived much later, changed the details of the setup without consulting with Bundy — or any other rancher — and then began systematically driving out cattle and ranchers. Bundy refused to pay BLM, especially after they demanded he reduce his heard’s head count down to a level that would not sustain his ranch. Bundy OWNS the water and forage rights to this land. He paid for these rights. He built fences, established water ways, and constructed roads with his own money, with the approval of Nevada and BLM. When BLM started using his fees to run him off the land and harassing him, he ceased paying. So should BLM reimburse him for managing the land and for the confiscation of his water and forage rights?

Government plans to euthanize hundreds of desert tortoises after budget cuts to refuge | The Raw Story - Linkis.com

Harvey Whittemore Convicted Of Making Illegal Campaign Contributions To Harry Reid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOh6tetosiY

Folks, the democrats and the morons on the left have surely changed this country into our worst nightmare. You all think they are killing the constitution? It is already dead. All to the loud cheers of the absolute piece of shit hypocrites on the left. Listen to the interview and see what it is all about, as opposed what BSNBC is reporting. For fellow conservatives. Another case that the dicks on the left will celebrate and very relevant to this thread. The story of the Sacket family versus the EPA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40iHXAOjJ3U

Timothy McVeigh could articulate an eloquent rationale for his 'rebellion' too.

 

[eagle1462010]

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sackett v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 566 U.S. ___ (2012), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Clean Water Act is subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires an appeals process for any ruling by a federal agency. The Court ruled that the availability of immediate judicial review of compliance orders issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency is required.

Shifted to district court. Anybody see the final outcome in District court...............

The Sackett case is utter BS. It is past the time to put these damn Federal Agencies in their place.

 

[deltex1]

What a smuck. Another one that is noted

Bring out that NDAA document and we'll wipe the floor with it

-Geaux


Harry Reid Calls Bundy Supporters 'Domestic Terrorists'

“U.S. Sen. Harry Reid on Thursday called [armed, militia-supported] supporters of Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy ’domestic terrorists’ because they defended him against a Bureau of Land Management cattle roundup with guns and put their children in harm’s way,” Las Vegas’ reviewjournal.com reports. “’Those people who hold themselves out to be patriots are not. They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,’ Reid said during an appearance at a Las Vegas Review-Journal ‘Hashtags & Headlines’ event at the Paris. ‘… I repeat: what went on up there was domestic terrorism.’” We called that one. When push comes to shove, the enemies of liberty . . .

Breaking: Senator Harry Reid Calls Bundy Supporters "Domestic Terrorists" | The Truth About Guns

Who cares what an asshole said? My comment has been peer reviewed.

 

[Vigilante]

Federal Jurisdiction



[snip] In June 1957, the government of the United States published a work entitled Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States: Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, Part II, which report is the definitive study on this issue. Therein, the Committee stated:

"The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means of Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction -- by State consent under Article I, section 8, clause 17 .... Justice McLean suggested that the Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction, and that if this mode is not pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can take place," Id., at 41.
​

"It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise by the State, subject to non-interference by the State with Federal functions," Id., at 45.
​

"The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State," Id., at 46.
​

"On the other hand, while the Federal Government has power under various provisions of the Constitution to define, and prohibit as criminal, certain acts or omissions occurring anywhere in the United States, it has no power to punish for various other crimes, jurisdiction over which is retained by the States under our Federal-State system of government, unless such crime occurs on areas as to which legislative jurisdiction has been vested in the Federal Government," Id., at 107.
​

Thus, from an abundance of case law, buttressed by this lengthy and definitive government treatise on this issue, the "jurisdiction of the United States" is carefully circumscribed and defined as a very precise portion of America. The United States is one of the 51 jurisdictions existing on this continent, excluding Canada and its provinces.[/snip]

Federal Jurisdiction

 

[Vigilante]

QUESTION: Is it true that nearly 80% of Nevada is still owned by the Federal Government who then pays no tax to the State of Nevada? This seems very strange if true as a backdrop to this entire Bundy affair.
You seem to be the only person to tell the truth without getting crazy.
Thank you so much
HF

REPLY: The truth behind Nevada is of course just a quagmire of politics. Nevada was a key pawn in getting Abraham Lincoln reelected in 1864 during the middle of the Civil War. Back on March 21st, 1864, the US Congress enacted the Nevada Statehood statute that authorized the residents of Nevada Territory to elect representatives to a convention for the purpose of having Nevada join the Union. This is where we find the origin of the fight going on in Nevada that the left-wing TV commenters (pretend-journalists) today call a right-wing uprising that should be put down at all costs. The current land conflict in Nevada extends back to this event in 1864 and how the territory of Nevada became a state in order to push through a political agenda to create a majority vote. I have said numerous times, if you want the truth, just follow the money.

The “law” at the time in 1864 required that for a territory to become a state, the population had to be at least 60,000. At that time, Nevada had only about 40,000 people. So why was Nevada rushed into statehood in violation of the law of the day? When the 1864 Presidential election approached, there were special interests who were seeking to manipulate the elections to ensure Lincoln would win reelection. They needed another Republican congressional delegation that could provide additional votes for the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery. Previously, the attempt failed by a very narrow margin that required two-thirds support of both houses of Congress.


The fear rising for the 1864 election was that there might arise three major candidates running. There was Abraham Lincoln of the National Union Party, George B. McClellan of the Democratic Party, and John Charles Frémont (1813–1890) of the Radical Democracy Party. It was actually Frémont who was the first anti-slavery Republican nominee back in the 1940s. During the Civil War, he held a military command and was the first to issue an emancipation edict that freed slaves in his district. Lincoln maybe credited for his stand, but he was a politician first. Lincoln relieved Frémont of his command for insubordination. Therefore, the Radical Democracy Party was the one demanding emancipation of all slaves.
With the Republicans splitting over how far to go with some supporting complete equal rights and others questioning going that far, the Democrats were pounding their chests and hoped to use the split in the Republicans to their advantage. The New York World was a newspaper published in New York City from 1860 until 1931 that was the mouth-piece for the Democrats. From 1883 to 1911 it was under the notorious publisher Joseph Pulitzer (1847–1911), who started the Spanish-American war by publishing false information just to sell his newspapers. Nonetheless, it was the New World that was desperately trying to ensure the defeat of Lincoln. It was perhaps their bravado that led to the Republicans state of panic that led to the maneuver to get Nevada into a voting position.

The greatest fear, thanks to the New York World, became what would happen if the vote was fragmented (which we could see in 2016) and no party could achieve a majority of electoral votes. Consequently, the election would then be thrown into the House of Representatives, where each state would have only one vote. Consequently, the Republicans believed they needed Nevada on their side for this would give them an equal vote with every other state despite the tiny amount of people actually living there. Moreover, the Republicans needed two more loyal Unionist votes in the U.S. Senate to also ensure that the Thirteenth Amendment would be passed. Nevada’s entry would secure both the election and the three-fourths majority needed for the Thirteenth Amendment enactment.

​

The votes at the end of the day demonstrate that they never needed Nevada. Nonetheless, within the provisions of the Statehood Act of March 21, 1864 that brought Nevada into the voting fold, we see the source of the problem today. This Statehood Act retained the ownership of the land as a territory for the federal government. In return for the Statehood that was really against the law, the new state surrendered any right, title, or claim to the unappropriated public lands lying within Nevada. Moreover, this cannot be altered without the consent of the Feds. Hence, the people of Nevada cannot claim any land whatsoever because politicians needed Nevada for the 1864 election but did not want to hand-over anything in return. This was a typical political one-sided deal.

Republican Ronald Reagan had argued for the turnover of the control of such lands to the state and local authorities back in 1980. Clearly, the surrender of all claims to any land for statehood was illegal under the Constitution. This is no different from Russia seizing Crimea. The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated “that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State.” The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it “conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.”

The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:
The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.
So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.

Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land – not federal.

Blog | Armstrong Economics | Forecasting the World

 

[Vigilante]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAwALTdrMZ8]The Truth About the BLM - Bundy Ranch Dispute Explained - YouTube[/ame]

 

[CorvusRexus]

What a smuck. Another one that is noted

Bring out that NDAA document and we'll wipe the floor with it

-Geaux


Harry Reid Calls Bundy Supporters 'Domestic Terrorists'

“U.S. Sen. Harry Reid on Thursday called [armed, militia-supported] supporters of Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy ’domestic terrorists’ because they defended him against a Bureau of Land Management cattle roundup with guns and put their children in harm’s way,” Las Vegas’ reviewjournal.com reports. “’Those people who hold themselves out to be patriots are not. They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,’ Reid said during an appearance at a Las Vegas Review-Journal ‘Hashtags & Headlines’ event at the Paris. ‘… I repeat: what went on up there was domestic terrorism.’” We called that one. When push comes to shove, the enemies of liberty . . .

Breaking: Senator Harry Reid Calls Bundy Supporters "Domestic Terrorists" | The Truth About Guns

What do ya know! Dems calling defenders of the Constitution "terrorists". I can quite happily call myself Reid Terrorist and not lose a bit of sleep. Anybody else a domestic terrorist?

 

[freedombecki]

What a smuck. Another one that is noted

Bring out that NDAA document and we'll wipe the floor with it

-Geaux


Harry Reid Calls Bundy Supporters 'Domestic Terrorists'

“U.S. Sen. Harry Reid on Thursday called [armed, militia-supported] supporters of Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy ’domestic terrorists’ because they defended him against a Bureau of Land Management cattle roundup with guns and put their children in harm’s way,” Las Vegas’ reviewjournal.com reports. “’Those people who hold themselves out to be patriots are not. They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,’ Reid said during an appearance at a Las Vegas Review-Journal ‘Hashtags & Headlines’ event at the Paris. ‘… I repeat: what went on up there was domestic terrorism.’” We called that one. When push comes to shove, the enemies of liberty . . .

Breaking: Senator Harry Reid Calls Bundy Supporters "Domestic Terrorists" | The Truth About Guns

What do ya know! Dems calling defenders of the Constitution "terrorists". I can quite happily call myself Reid Terrorist and not lose a bit of sleep. Anybody else a domestic terrorist?

Does being a charger member in the quilter's terrorist society count? We terrorize poverty so it will go away.

Reid just mouths off at Republicans because he thinks it will stimulate his apparatchik base. He's starting to lose a lot of academia who understand math and American History, but hasn't faced it yet. *sigh*.

 

[KNB]

Let's see..... The US Constitution says something, I'm sure, about police upholding court orders. It has to say that somewhere in there.

And I'm almost positive that the US Constitution does not say anything about citizens deciding that they can choose to draw firearms on police to prevent a court order from being enforced.

So who in the Nevada "militia" was defending the US Constitution?

 

[Vigilante]

Let's see..... The US Constitution says something, I'm sure, about police upholding court orders. It has to say that somewhere in there.

And I'm almost positive that the US Constitution does not say anything about citizens deciding that they can choose to draw firearms on police to prevent a court order from being enforced.

So who in the Nevada "militia" was defending the US Constitution?

Damn, you subversive sure are fucked up when it comes to the Constitution...amongst almost everything else!

Second Amendment - Bearing Arms Amendment Text | Annotations

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

2nd Amendment Annotations Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3 However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well. In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. Further, the Court distinguished United States v.Miller,4 in which the Court upheld a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns, on the ground that Miller limited the type of weapon to which the Second Amendment right applied to those in common use for lawful purposes. In McDonald v. Chicago,5 the Court struck down laws enacted by Chicago and the village of Oak Park effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty. - See more at:

Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

 

[KNB]

So who in the Nevada "militia" was defending the US Constitution by bearing arms against police who were enforcing a court order according to American law?


Also, what do you think "well-regulated" means? Do some mental gymnastics to define them as such.

 

[Vigilante]

So who in the Nevada "militia" was defending the US Constitution by bearing arms against police who were enforcing a court order according to American law?


Also, what do you think "well-regulated" means? Do some mental gymnastics to define them as such.

They were there! Defending Bundy, from the tyranny of the BLM and the Federal gov't.

http://www.fromthetrenchesworldrepo...ilitia-is-mobilizing-cliven-bundy-ranch/83703

But you're such a subversive you can't understand what we say to you!