As some of those staunch defenders of our rights, in both Burns, Oregon, and Bunkerville, Nevada, decide to make a plea agreement with the prosecutors, the Internet has both armchair quarterbacks damning them and sympathetic supporters who will stand by their decision. However, perhaps it is necessary to look a little deeper into who those people, at both the Ranch and Refuge are, and to consider their respective objectives.
We can categorize those who participated in both events by comparing them to those who stood up against the British, 240 years ago. In so doing, there are three general categories, so that we can consider them in a contemporary context.
The first category is, for want of a better term, the politicos. Historically, these would be those who served on local and Provincial Committees of Safety and, those who went to Philadelphia and served in the Continental Congress. There may be others, such as newspaper editors and others who were outspoken against the British, so that we can lump them into this category, as well.
Now, in the past two years, we have, likewise, the politicos, those whose involvement is to challenge the government concerning both rights and that which should be right. Their objective is educational as well as political, desiring to provide understanding to other citizens as well as to attempt to get the government to stay within its limits and to remain obedient to the Constitution.
The second category is those with military inclinations. For the most part, they had prior military and leadership experience in the French and Indian wars. Their purpose was to use military force to protect the rights of Englishmen and defend against forces thrown against them.
In the contemporary context, it would include those with military and leadership experience who have taken the task of protecting those politicos against attempts at violent suppression of their right to seek redress of grievances and to speak freely on subjects of concern to others.
These first two categories can easily be equated to the First Amendment, for the politicos, and the Second Amendment for those with military inclinations.
The third category is those who offer support, which would include those lesser military types (enlisted men) or those who provided food, blankets, firewood, and other necessities to those in the other two categories. They were more than simply vocal supporters. They acted to support those who were defending their rights.
In both events, we also have members of this third category, whether it was by standing guard, cooking, doing laundry, reviewing documents, or any other necessary support activities. They served with actions, not words.
Those men of words, those politicos, were the most feared by the British government. John Hancock and Sam Adams, for example, were exempt from the amnesty offered early on as the Revolutionary War began. They were also secondary targets in the British march to Lexington and Concord.
Today, we see those men of words (not the armchair sort) not even being considered for plea agreements. They are the most feared, and the government will do all that it can to silence them. They cannot be flight risks, as they have homes, businesses, and families that tie them to an open life. Now that the game is on, they are committed to presenting their case, even though they know that the odds are against them when the judicial branch (court) and the executive branch (prosecutors) gang up against them; suppressing communication, disrupting them in jail, and doing their best to deny communication with those who might be able to help them. It was only after more than five months that the Court decides that the co-defendants could communicate with each other to prepare their defense. These patriots will not plead out, as they are on the proper battlefield, even though disadvantaged, to fight their war of words and principles, and for our Constitution.
Support Canada Free Press
Next, we have the militarily inclined participants. Their job was to protect the politicos. At the Bundy Affair, many of those who had been on the Ranch remained on the Ranch to protect the Bundy family, home and property, as their assigned duty. They did not participate in the Unrustling of April 12, 2014. They did not abandon their mission. They stayed at their duty station, as they should. Others, who had only arrived on the 12th chose to defend and protect those mostly third category people who had come to demonstrate their support for the Bundy cause.
In Burns, the protection and defense were carried on throughout the possession of the Refuge. Unfortunately, failure to plan against an ambush resulted in some of them being caught in an indefensible situation. This resulted in the arrest of some of the people and the death of LaVoy Finicum.
It is among this group that we see some entering into plea agreements with the government. However, taking a plea agreement doesn't necessarily jeopardize the politicos or other military types. The fact that they pled is not admissible in the subsequent trials. Only if they choose to abandon any integrity will they turn state's evidence and testify against the others. Those, only, will become a pariah -- and no longer reasonably able to consider themselves as patriots.
But, still, we have the dilemma that is the subject of this article. By pleading, have they given up their principles and their integrity?
George Washington won against the British by doing his utmost to be able to "fight another day". Though a prisoner of war may be a burden on the enemy, it is worse when that fighting man is lost to the cause that they champion. If the prisoner of war can escape, he can rejoin the battle.
As explained in Terrorism Enhanced Penalties v. Due Process, they were facing what they believed to be a possible sentence of thirty years under the threat of terrorism enhancement. Their appointed attorneys conspired with the prosecutors and the court to intimidate them with the threat of thirty years in prison. That would put them in their fifties, or older, and would probably preclude them from "fighting another day".
However, by pleading out, they will be back on the streets in a few years. At that time, they can rejoin the battle, if they so choose.
Now, they do, according to the current interpretation of the "felon in possession of a firearm" laws, give up their right to possess firearms. However, there are two circumstances that would negate that prohibition.
First is another battle, being fought since October 2014, when Kevin "KC" Massey, acting as both a politico and in a military capacity, was charged with "felon in possession of a firearm". Massey was legally in possession of a firearm, under Texas Revised Statutes. This was at odds with the federal charge brought against him at that time. He has chosen, as a politico, to fight the battle of words. Though he was convicted and is now in prison, he and his attorney, Phillip T. Cowen, are preparing an appeal that will challenge the federal interpretation of 18 U. S. Code ยง 922 (g)(1). If he prevails, then the statute will only apply to those involved, directly, in commerce, whereby the firearm crosses state or international boundaries. Once out of commerce, it could be lawfully possessed.
Second is rather simple and easily understood. If we come to open conflict with the government, because of their abrogating their lawful responsibilities under, and usurping authority never granted them by the Constitution, we will all be enforcing the right to keep, bear, and use, arms. That prohibition then becomes moot.
Now, as to the third category, there is nothing to be said. They are free to choose to join the legal battle, or plea so that they can return to their role much sooner -- should the government prevail at trial.
Now, let's change the perspective to a more realistic and individual one. I might be considered among the first group, the politicos. When I was younger, I found myself holding a firearm in protecting rights, though I never found cause to use them. I have also been encouraged to use the sword of words, the Pen, as I have been doing since Waco.
If I found myself in the circumstances that those patriots have found themselves in, I can only speculate what course I would take. If I chose to take a chance that the courts in this country can serve justice, and I lost -- facing thirty years -- well, my children are grown but then I would be 100 years old when I got out (I would probably die in prison). Of course, in prison, I would still have access to a keyboard, so I could continue to wage the battles that I now wage, though access to events would be severely limited. However, if I could get out after only a few years, I could remain a part of the patriot community, and quite possibly continue pretty much as I have for the past few decades.
However, if I were younger, the considerations would be different from what I would face, now. If I had young children, would I be willing to forgo helping and watching them grow? With thirty years, I would miss the birth of my grandchildren. When I consider what is most important to me, it is family, then country, to which I have made my commitment. So, unless and until I find myself in that circumstance, I can honestly say that I can only guess at what choice I would make.
Now, back to those who have chosen to plea. I don't wear their shoes, and I am grateful for that. I am also grateful for them, as they did what had to be done, when it had to be done. Not many of us can say that we, too, did what had to be done, when it needed to be done.
Nor do I wear your shoes, so I will not partake in speculation as to what you would, or should, do if you found yourself in such a situation as they have. First, most who will read this have not taken a single step in that direction. Second, your particular circumstances, especially with your family, are an unknown to me. I can only say that so long as you did not turn state's evidence, I would respect your decision, as you, not I, have to live with it.
Gary Hunt was a Professional Land Surveyor. Having been the County Surveyor for Orange County, Florida from 1974 to 1978, he began private practice in 1978 and continued as such until 1993, when events in Waco, Texas caused him to leave his business in pursuit of restoring the Constitution.
In 1989, he began researching, investigating and studying history, law and events where the government was “pointing its guns in the wrong direction”. He began publishing a patriot newspaper, “Outpost of Freedom”, in February 1993.
Since that time, he has investigated numerous occurrences, including, Waco, the Murder of Michael Hill, Ohio Militia Chaplain, Oklahoma City Bombing, and other events. He has attended the sites to investigate the events, and has reported on his investigations.
He has continued to report on his findings on the Internet, as well as write articles about other current events; about the history of the Revolutionary era; and the founding documents.
