As most readers know, Connecticut Citizen's Defense League (CCDL) held a rally on Saturday in defense of the Second Amendment and in opposition to Public Act 13-3 (assault weapons ban-a misnomer as it is). By all accounts it was well-attended by a largely armed citizenry with no incidents, as one would expect.
In a recent post I encouraged attendance by all who could make it, especially those in other states in close proximity to Connecticut to show support. With or without my encouragement, they did as I suspected they would and many different states were represented. This is the sort of support it will take to drive home the message to every legislature that attempts to pass such arbitrary and illegal laws will be resisted with mutual support.
It has come to my attention that some felt that I would be at this rally due to my wholehearted support and several posts in which I encouraged attendance. My pledge to go to Connecticut was not to attend this rally, but to the greater prospect of government action against gun owners. I sent an email to several trusted folks with that exact intent. I apologize if some got the wrong impression of my intentions, or that I did not make myself clear on my pledge, which stands today, but not just for Connecticut.
Right now, in Nevada another storm is brewing with rancher Cliven Bundy. Most liberty-minded people have been simultaneously monitoring the events in Connecticut and Nevada. Hopefully they have been studying the issues with the Bundy Ranch and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
The issue comes down to the BLM attempts to drive Cliven Bundy from his long-held (over 100 years) grazing rights on federal land. The land Bundy grazed had been improved by him by establishing available water for his cattle, which also served wildlife in the area. As is custom with the federal government, BLM contrived an environmental excuse to force him to remove the cattle from federal grazing (protection of the desert tortoise). This is a long-smoldering issue in the West where the federal government owns huge percentages of land in several states; in Nevada the federal government continues to own over 85% of all land. Where else would a rancher, who had established the ranch prior to the formation of BLM, graze their cattle? When was the federal land available for sale to Bundy?
This is a state's rights issue where the federal government should have ceded the land to Nevada upon establishment of statehood to be sold off to public interests. But, it has come down to Bundy to try to defend himself and his ranch from this injustice.
The confrontation between Bundy and BLM has been largely publicized and while it may shape up as another Ruby Ridge, a patriot might only watch and prep and try to discern one's role in any of the several possible conflicts across the nation. There are still actions in Albuquerque where the police and federal agents have taken a militant attitude toward defending themselves from charges of over-aggressive use of arms. The irony of that should not surprise anyone.
As a patriot dedicated to the ideals of life, liberty and property, one must choose when and where to put their life on the line for these ideals. As Nathan Hale proclaimed, prior to his hanging by the British, "I regret that I have but one life to give to my country." And, so it is for all of us and some difficult decisions must be made today about our own legacies and efforts in the cause of liberty.
I trust in God to lead me to the cause for which I will give my life for this country; I have but one and must choose wisely.