BLM blinks in their range war

[pueno]

[nw30]

I think this is a great idea, each jurisdiction has all the firepower they need already, as mentioned in the article below. Besides we could use that money for other things, something less threatening that doesn't supposedly require fire power.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Utah lawmaker moves to disarm BLM, IRS, says ‘They’re not paramilitary units’
By Cheryl K. Chumley
The Washington Times

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, concerned about the armed agents that surrounded Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s property, is mulling a measure to cut funding for any “paramilitary units” that work for the Bureau of Land Management, the Internal Revenue Service and other federal regulatory agencies.

“There are lots of people who are really concerned when the BLM shows up with its own SWAT team,” he said, the Salt Lake Tribune reported. “They’re regulatory agencies. They’re not paramilitary units, and I think that concerns a lot of us.”

His mulled amendment to an appropriations bill comes in context of recent BLM actions against Mr. Bundy: The federal agents armed themselves and surrounded his property, tasered his son, closed down road access to the ranch and even shot a couple of his prize bulls. The reasons? Mr. Bundy hadn’t paid his grazing fees to the federal government, but rather fought the matter in court.

Militia from all over the nation came to the ranch to support Mr. Bundy in his standoff with the BLM — and for that, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid labeled them “domestic terrorists,” various media reported.

The BLM finally backed off and left — but not before a shocked nation expressed outrage at the government’s armed stance against a man who, at the root, was guilty of not paying a bill.

Mr. Stewart said it’s high time the government end its practice of arming its own special units for various agencies, like the BLM and the IRS.

“They should do what anyone else would do,” he told the Salt Lake Tribune. “Call the local sheriff, who has the capability to intervene in situations like that.”

The Interior Department, for its part, said the BLM and National Park Service had armed agents at Mr. Bundy’s ranch to guarantee the safety of the public and of their workers.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/30/bundy-aftermath-utah-lawmaker-moves-to-disarm-blm-/

[uwindsurf]

"The BLM fields a force of approximately 200 Law Enforcement Rangers (uniformed officers) and 70 Special Agents (criminal investigators) who enforce a wide range of laws and regulations in the prevention, detection, and investigation of crimes affecting public lands resources. These crimes include mineral resource theft; wilderness area violations; hazardous materials dumping; archaeological and paleontological resource theft and vandalism; cultivation, manufacture, smuggling, and use of illegal drugs; timber, forest product, and native plant theft; off-highway vehicle use; alcohol related crimes; and wildland arson."

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/law_enforcement.html

The local Sheriff has no jurisdiction to enforce the Federal laws.

Mr. Stewart received funds from the NRA and appears to oppose gun restrictions, yet he wants to disarm certain citizens (Federal officers). I guess Mr. Stewart would have no objection if the Federal officers asserted their 2nd Amendment rights and carried their own guns while on duty? Or for that matter, if every Federal employee wanted to carry a gun on the job, I can't imagine Mr. Stewart would say they have no 2nd Amendment right to do so. If guns are good for one segment of the population, they should be good for all.

"Utah's entire congressional delegation, and a majority of other elected officials around the state, may be shrieking about President Barack Obama's recent gun-control proposals, but we are not. More than a year ago, Park City Mayor Dana Williams took an early stand on the issue by joining New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's nationwide group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a move that most of his constituents support.

That was before 20 first-grade students and six teachers were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

Utah Republican Senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, along with their cohorts in the House of Representatives, Rob Bishop, Jason Chaffetz and Chris Stewart, and even the state's lone "sorta" Democrat, Representative Jim Matheson have characterized the president's plan as a violation of citizens' sacred Second Amendment rights. Even before the ink was dry on the president's announcement they were already threatening to block all of the propsal's major tenets."

http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_22404661/utah-officials-should-ask-public-before-towing-nra

[keycocker]

The good senator from Utah has no interest in disarming the actual paramilitary units who aimed guns at The Feds.
He just wants to disarm the Feds- on Federal land.

[nw30]

"The BLM fields a force of approximately 200 Law Enforcement Rangers (uniformed officers) and 70 Special Agents (criminal investigators) who enforce a wide range of laws and regulations in the prevention, detection, and investigation of crimes affecting public lands resources. These crimes include mineral resource theft; wilderness area violations; hazardous materials dumping; archaeological and paleontological resource theft and vandalism; cultivation, manufacture, smuggling, and use of illegal drugs; timber, forest product, and native plant theft; off-highway vehicle use; alcohol related crimes; and wildland arson."

Most all of which can be, and are handled by other agencies that already exists, Federal Marshalls, Game Wardens, ATF, FBI, and even the Sheriff's Dept. when requested.
I have a game warden that's a good friend of mine, they can give out speeding tickets, give chase to whomever for what ever, and they've been helping in ponga boat recoveries, as well as searching for the smugglers. They can enforce all laws that happen w/in their jurisdiction, fed, state, and private lands. And they are very well armed.

Can somebody give a credible explanation as to why the IRS needs to be armed? If needed, they could have back up by another armed agency.
What a waste of our taxes.

[mac]

The only thing more bizarre than Bundy is the tin hats defense of him as he fleeces us all. From the Forbes site, the case against grazing, much less grazing for free:

[J64TWB]

All I know is Cliven Bundy is the luckiest right wing racist around. Only to be replaced by another in the news. I applaud you NW for backing off your defense of him, unlike stevenbard.

[coboardhead]

NW

You were asking about armed IRS agents or armed BLM rangers?

Either way, it is sort of the same thing. I have a friend who was a BLM law enforcement agent for awhile. The sheriff would investigate a crime. However, they would not investigate a situation where a crime may, or may not, have been committed. So, my friend would go out deep in the field to investigate. Sometimes this put him in a dangerous situation where his law enforcement training was needed.

Try walking up to a rancher out in western Colorado wearing your khakis and telling the guy he has too many cattle. Try it again with a uniform and a sidearm! I wonder which one works better? Do you think the Sheriff will go run out and tell Bubba to reduce his herd because my 100lb niece counted too many cattle on her field visit?

[DanWeiss]

I wonder if those people aiming at law enforcement agents with live weapons from elevated, protected, sniper positions understand the gravity of what they did? Most of these people were fully identifiable who took arms against the federal government.

Let me put it another way. In general, one cannot threaten with deadly force a thief intending to take property except under very limited circumstances. The feds had every right to seize the animals under the terms of a court order. They were not stealing anything let alone threatening to kill or harm any person. The guys on the bridge with guns were not acting out of right but out of rage. Those guys claim the moral high ground but act like violent anarchists. Ironically, they behaved as do the Taliban, by using children and alarmed women as human shields.

Those who may disagree with the IRS or BLM may object freely as long as that objection is free from threats of violence. That represents freedom, not the right to point a gun at someone with whom you don't agree.

I wonder how many will find themselves on a no-fly list in the near future?

[MalibuGuru]

Dan, unlike your state, you can carry a weapon openly in NV on BLM or private land. I assume Bundy's "guests" had his permission to be there. As far as the guys on the bridge, I have read that the media keeps playing the same video of one guy aiming his ar-15 in a prone position over and over again. This would be illegal if he were aiming at someone or threatening them.

The broader picture is about states rights. Should the federal government own so much of the south and west and so little of the north east? I do not believe this is fair. If the NE folks want to give up the same proportion of their states as the west has, so be it.