The Bundy Affair – #11 – “Violence Begets Non-Violence”

The Bundy Affair – #11

“Violence Begets Non-Violence”

Changing into battle gear

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 3, 2016

It was on April 12, 2014, when mostly unarmed supporters gathered at the Toequap (Toquop) Wash, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, between Exits 112 and 120 on Interstate Highway 15, stood down the federal government with regard to cattle been “impounded”, readied for transport, or killed.  However, since the government has brought the matter up, again, we may want to revisit some of the incidents and circumstances that led to the Unrustling of cattle by these supporters of the original American Way of Life.

It was April 6, 2014, at about 1:30 in the afternoon, when Dave Bundy had stopped to take pictures of the 20, or so, vehicles coming off a road from Gold Butte Mountain.  It was rather odd to see so many vehicles in that location, so Dave had decided to record the event.

Other Bundy relatives were present and reported seeing four snipers, one of them about 30 feet away from Arden Bundy.

The men in the vehicle convoy stopped, exited, donned tactical gear (pictured above) and told those present to “disperse immediately”.  The other Bundys began to disperse, or remained in the vehicles to watch what was transpiring, however, Dave continued taking pictures.  Understand that Dave, and the others, were on a public road, simply wondering about, and recording, what was going on.

  1. As Dave continued, some armed men approached Dave, grabbing him and throwing him to the ground, then rubbed his face in the gravel as they handcuffed him.  He was then placed in one of the vehicles and they headed toward Henderson, Nevada.  One of the government players, Lisa Wilson (Load/Hold Team, one of the Rustler’s teams, (775) 229-2722, see Government Agents at the Bundy Ranch) began to question/ interrogate Dave, who refused to provide any meaningful answers, as he had done nothing more than take pictures from a public road.


Upon arrival, he was booked into the Henderson Detention Center (the same location that he and other Bundy defendants have found themselves visiting, more recently), and spent the night.  No arraignment, no charges, just “Graybar Hotel” time.

The following morning, April 7, he was handcuffed and taken to a federal building where many other agents questioned him, though he never did see a judge or magistrate.  Finally, he was given two citations, “Failure to Disperse” and “Resisting Arrest”, and turned out onto the streets of Las Vegas — where he had to fend for himself to get back to the Bundy Ranch.

On Tuesday April 8, Clancy Cox and Arden Bundy were down by the Virgin River, which abuts the Bundy Ranch, when they observed helicopters herding cattle, often hitting the livestock with the skids of the helicopter.  This was extremely stressful to the livestock, especially to the calves that could not keep up with their mother.

On April 9, some of the Bundys and their supporters stood where a dirt road intersects Highway 170.  A number of SUVs, trailers with heavy equipment, and dump trucks, were leaving the Gold Butte area.  They wanted to see what was being removed in the dump trucks, since it was from the area where the Bundy cattle browsed for food.  They stood in the road to slow down the convoy.  Agents exited the vehicles, drew their tasers, and those with dogs restrained them while in attack mode.  Government agents (video) threw one of the participants, Margaret Bundy Houston, to the ground.  Ammon Bundy was tasered while trying to assist Margaret.

Well, that is just one side of the story of the government aggressive and illegal actions that led up to the subsequent release of the cattle.  However, there is another side that is figuratively aggressive, and literally illegal, that must also be considered.

On July 9, 2013, Judge Lloyd D. George, of the Nevada United States District Court, granted a Summary Judgments against Cliven Bundy.  In essence, it was an Order to arrest those cattle that strayed onto certain portions of government “owned” land.  However, the Order only provided for the “impounding” of the cattle, with no direction as to the disposal of those cattle that the government was able to arrest.  This left an open door to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), with regard to disposition of the cattle — with no legal direction as to that end.

Shayne Sampson and Camm Warner, out of Utah, were contracted by the BLM to “rustle” [to round up and steal cattle] the “trespass cattle” on “trespass lands”.  However, there have been laws in effect for over a century that were enacted to protect against cattle rustling.  These laws apply, in some cases within a state, and in all cases when entering a state, with cattle.  They are: 1) brand inspection, assuring that the livestock is yours, or that you have a bill of sale for the livestock.  And, 2), a livestock health certificate that assures that the livestock is not carrying communicable diseases.

Here, for example, is the Nevada law Branding, not Health):


205.220. Grand larceny: Definition

Except as otherwise provided in NRS 205.226 and 205.228, a person commits grand larceny if the person:

  1. Intentionally steals, takes and carries away, leads away or drives away:

(a) Personal goods or property, with a value of $250 or more, owned by another person;

(b) Bedding, furniture or other property, with a value of $250 or more, which the person, as a lodger, is to use in or with his lodging and which is owned by another person; or

(c) Real property, with a value of $250 or more, that the person has converted into personal property by severing it from real property owned by another person.

  1. Uses a card or other device for automatically withdrawing or transferring money in a financial institution to obtain intentionally money to which he knows he is not entitled.
  2. Intentionally steals, takes and carries away, leads away, drives away or entices away:

(a) One or more head of livestock owned by another person; or

(b) One or more domesticated animals or domesticated birds, with an aggregate value of $250 or more, owned by another person.

  1. With the intent to defraud, steal, appropriate or prevent identification:

(a) Marks or brands, causes to be marked or branded, alters or defaces a mark or brand, or causes to be altered or defaced a mark or brand upon one or more head of livestock owned by another person;

(b) Sells or purchases the hide or carcass of one or more head of livestock owned by another person that has had a mark or brand cut out or obliterated;

(c) Kills one or more head of livestock owned by another person but running at large, whether or not the livestock is marked or branded; or

(d) Kills one or more domesticated animals or domesticated birds, with an aggregate value of $250 or more, owned by another person but running at large, whether or not the animals or birds are marked or branded.

The “rustled cattle” were captured in Nevada, to be transported over Nevada roads, and were subject to numerous state and federal laws, though no effort was pursued to have Nevada relinquish their jurisdiction, overriding the state laws.

Sampson and Warner were going to take the cattle to Utah and sell them at auction.  So, let’s look at the destination state:



  • All cattle that forage on open range must be branded with a Utah recorded brand. You should always carry your wallet-size brand card with you.  It is recommended that all cattle not grazing on open range also be branded with a recorded brand to assist in the return of stray cattle and to prevent theft.
    • Brand inspections are required by law. Get a brand inspection, even if cattle are not branded, when they are:
    • Changing ownership
    • Going to slaughter
    • Leaving the state (yearly rodeo and show cattle inspections are provided at a cost of $15.00 per head)
    • When traveling within the state always carry proof of ownership. The following items will be accepted as proof:
    • Wallet-size brand card matching brand on cattle
    • A brand inspection certificate showing where you purchased the animals or travel destination. A bill of sale does not serve as proof of ownership
    • An auction invoice
    • Registration papers (in name of current owner) on registered cattle.
    • When you are transporting cattle that belong to someone else, carry written permission from owner. All cattle should be rebranded with new owner’s brand within 30 days of purchase.


  • To reduce the risk of spreading disease from other states to our livestock the following laws pertain:
    • All livestock entering the state must have a valid health certificate issued by a certified veterinarian in the state of origin, except when they are consigned on the brand inspection certificate directly to an approved auction or slaughterhouse, or traveling on a current animal entry permitor commuter permit.
    • In addition to the health certificate, all horses must also have had a negative Coggins test within the last year.
    • All cattle, bison, elk, sheep, and hogs must have a permit number issued by the Utah Department of Agriculture prior to entry.
    • All import requirements for animals entering Utah can be found inR58-1 (Admission and Inspection of Livestock, Poultry, and Other Animals).
    • Livestock being shipped or transported other states must comply with the import requirements of the state of destination.

Clearly, what the BLM intended to do, given the ambiguity of the Judge’s Order, was to violate state laws.  There are also federal health laws with regard to cattle, and there is no evidence that there was ever any intention of complying with either state or federal law.  Frankly, what they intended, and to the extent that they accomplished anything, is criminal, punishable behavior, at best.  And, there can be little doubt that the killing of some of the cattle, whether intentional, or not, is a violent and aggressive act.

Now, a question arises as to whether there was any violence on the part of the Bundy supporters, whether militia, or not.  Well, the government says that they had guns.  That’ right, some of them did.  The Second Amendment, the Nevada Constitution, and statutes, protect that right.  Now, we can wonder why they have that right, or we can go to the Nevada Revised Statutes:

Title 15.  Crimes and Punishments, CHAPTER 200 – Crimes Against the Person

200.120  “Justifiable homicide” defined; no duty to retreat under certain circumstances.

  1. Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony [rustling cattle], or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.
  2. A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force as provided in subsection 1 if the person:

(a) Is not the original aggressor;

(b) Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and

(c) Is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly force is used.

So, on the day of the Unrustling (April 12), there were armed people who were “not the original aggressor“, who did “have a right to be present“, and, were “not engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity“.  However, the federal government claims that their obedience to the State law was criminal, resulting in some of the charges in the 63-page Superseding Indictment.  They were there solely to assure that the government aggressors, based upon previously mentioned behavior, did not escalate the violence.  They were there only for self-defense and the defense of others.  Had that not been their purpose, as the government alleges, there surely would have been a gunfight at Toequap Wash, that day.  In fact, the Bundy side showed far more discipline and composure than the government agents did.

Well, the government alleges that those who were armed were violating the law.  They assume that their acts were criminal, though those acts were very consistent, and obviously their right, in pursuance of State law.

So, this brings us to understand that the acts of violence perpetrated by the government, on the days that led up to the Unrustling, were, well, only intended to discourage people from asserting their right to be on public roads, take pictures, and, maybe even stop vehicles (shades of Ferguson, Missouri) to determine if illegal activity had taken place by killing cattle and hauling their remains out in the dump truck.  That would have been easily resolved if the public servants would have willingly cooperated and allowed observation of the content of the truck.

Then, there is the matter of Dave Bundy, who did not disperse when, told to, by what lawful authority, we have no indication.  Then, he was “resisting arrest”, though they do not provide any grounds for the arrest that they made, not to mention the abuse he was put through, and never even got before a judge.

However, through it all, no act of violence was perpetrated by and of the Bundy supporters.  The only violent acts were by the government agents and contractors, who were pursuing illegal activities, and using implied threats — pointed firearms — against the Bundy supporters.  This, under State law, would have allowed the agents to be shot, to stop the crimes they were committing.

So, with apologies to William Shakespeare, when dealing with the federal government, “Violence Begets Non-Violence“.



  1. Very informative… thank you

  2. AZRanger says:

    Gary, this is the essence of the “reasonable” argument that should be made by the defense attorneys at trial.
    This is the ONLY reason that certain of the protestors went and set up a Hi-Lo crossfire with their rifles! They saw the BLM Agents with their rifles leveled in a firing position and directed towards the unarmed men, women, and children who were in the wash that April morning!!!
    I did not think about the state vs federal land and the authority to detain, arrest, and cite individuals!!! I think that these spurious charges would be thrown out of any honest court in this country. The problem is that this”Kangaroo Court” in Nevada will do whatever they have been told to do by the federal Communist Administration!!!

  3. […] if it were rustlers, attempting to steal cattle (yes, steal cattle, in violation of state laws (see “Violence Begets Non-Violence”), could probably handle the task with half a dozen to a dozen men.  However, the Plan eloquently […]

Leave a Reply