A Youtube video was posted by Finicum on Nov. 20, 2015 in which he says he had “been asked to speak at a meeting with some southcentral Utah ranchers.” In the nearly 72 minute video, you can hear both Finicum and Reynolds plead their case to Utah ranchers that now is the time to stand up to the federal government.
The video opens with the very well-spoken Finicum, from Fredonia, Ariz., explaining his situation and Constitutional philosophy and promoting the power of militias (at 5:30). Finicum has stopped paying his grazing fees for his federal permit, has been cited and fined by the federal government for his trespassing cattle, and has written a novel describing “a family’s struggle to come together” during “devastating end-times chaos.” He is quite prolific in promoting his cause, including hitting the radical conservative talk show circuit.
Cope Reynolds is a gun store owner from Show Low, Ariz. who is best known for his not selling weapons to anyone who supported President Obama in 2012, brags about not having or wanting liberal friends, and since has been a loud voice for the Oath Keepers, III Percent United Patriots, and the militia movement.
Reynolds rubs shoulders with the controversial Sheriff Richard Mack of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and, like Finicum and Bundy, believes the federal government has no legal authority but that that power rests with the local sheriff. Mack’s involvement in the Bundy standoff sparked controversy among the militia who were at the event, as he wanted to use women and children in the effort while others wanted to spark a revolution.
Said Reynolds during his opening remarks (at 34:00), “We didn’t threaten lives at Bundy ranch. We saved lives.” He continued, “If the militia hadn’t been there, the outcome would have been much different, I promise you. It would have been so different, Bundy Ranch was a history-changing event. It was so different that we probably wouldn’t be here today.”
As though wanting something and someone to openly fight, pleading with ranchers to not be afraid of the militia movement, Reynolds says, “We can’t stand for you. We can only stand with you” (at 37:57).
Asst. Attorney General Tony Rampton appears to have been present (at 42:50). He was questioned and sometimes heckled by the audience of 50 or so people. Rampton seemed exasperated trying to explain to the crowd that it is his job to follow the law, to go through proper congressional, administrative and judicial channels to accomplish a “states rights” agenda. Somebody put a copy of the Constitution in front of Rampton and said, “There is your law.” The crowd was openly balking, on the edge of mocking, whereby Rampton asked the audience what they wanted him to do.
Finicum, accompanied by Reynolds, insisted that Rampton send a letter to the federal government saying Utah was taking over federal lands. “Don’t ask their permission! Just act that way! Don’t go through a court, don’t go through a court of law, you’re the State of Utah!” (at 47:45) The crowd applauded.
At one point, Rampton stated that participants can do as they wish, that they have free agency. However, along with that free agency comes the obligation to accept the consequences. “To do it the way you want to do it, to call it civil disobedience or call it whatever you want to call it, you have that choice,” said Rampton . “But you need to understand that when you make that choice, you’ll live with consequences” (at 44:50). Reynolds replies that it is time the federal government faces consequences.
Quite a warning from both men.
As if to drive home that point, Reynolds called out Utah commissioner and convicted ATV protest rider Phil Lyman as someone who needs to “stand up” so that Reynolds and his militias can come and support him. Finicium went so far as to say that he encouraged Lyman to not show up in federal court nor when he is supposed to report to prison. Seems Lyman has some heavy choices to make that initially were not so obvious to casual observers.
One of the most interesting and telling disagreements came from Finicum over Ken Ivory’s American Lands Council. You see, Finicum doesn’t believe that the ALC is taking the right position regarding public lands, as they start from a position that the federal government owns lands within states and that through congressional and judicial channels the state should lobby for their “return.” That’s neither constitutional nor direct enough for Finicum and Reynolds.
This demonstrates there is substantial disagreement within the “states rights” and “anti-federal lands” crowd concerning how to accomplish their goals. One, those like the ALC and Rampton, believes in using the “system” to resolve disagreements. The other, like Finicum, Reynolds, and Bundy, does not.
Instead, their remedy is a form of civil disobedience that includes terrorist threats of militia enforcement and getting what they want from the “system” without engaging in or accepting the outcome of civil institutions.
What is striking to me is the lack of efficacy the radical anti-public lands advocates have in resolving differences through civil means. We have a government with constitutional mechanisms in part to manage a civil society. We have a Constitution that guides our executive and legislative branches for law and rulemaking, and a judiciary branch that is the final arbiter of what is deemed “constitutional.”
Finicum, Reynolds, and many in attendance reject this premise on the grounds that these institutions are “corrupt” and acting “unconstitutionally.” And they want a militia to enforce their views of what is a good, constitutional government. They are self-interested anarchists who believe, like Sheriff Mack, in using their local sheriffs to enforce their will.
To quell some concerns, Utah ranchers can rest assured that most Utah Sheriffs are CSPOA members who may very well assist them in their efforts should they choose to move forward with Finicum and Reynold’s proposition.
In my view, I alone do not get to decide what is constitutional. We, as a people, get to decide this through our institutions that guide civil society. If you do not believe in systems that guide civil society and do not attempt to change either the composition or internal mechanisms that govern us, you are, by definition, uncivil.
And if you do not accept the decisions of our society and its institutions, which are composed of the citizens of the United States, and resort to violence to get your way, you are, by definition, uncivil.
Instead of threats, I urge people like Finicum, Reynolds, and many of those in attendance at this gathering to find some common ground with liberals like me who also believe our government at all levels is corrupt. I believe this is largely the influence of money in our crony capitalist system and a lack of participation by the people in the day-to-day affairs of their democratic institutions. The left and right should come together on this source of agreement, but I digress.
I, too, believe our constitutional system of government is not working and would like to see the fundamental structure of our democracy changed so that it works better for the people. I, like many, would like to see a constitutional convention called to address some of these concerns. Let’s make some fundamental changes to our system, within the system.
In all democracies, nonviolent civil disobedience is everyone’s right, and a security plan while engaging in it is prudent. Engaging in thuggish behavior by taking up arms through militias and planning to violently enforce what you alone believe is your right and then calling it civil disobedience is neither civil nor the answer.
But as Rampton astutely pointed out, if ranchers in southern Utah wish to be anarchists and exercise their free agency, they must surely be prepared to accept the consequences.
At one point in the recording (33:30), a rancher quite tellingly says, “I don’t know what we need to do as a group, but the last thing I want to do is have another Bundy deal … and I don’t want to face those guns again.”
Don’t be fooled Utah ranchers: It appears that facing guns is exactly what Finicum and Reynolds want.
Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly states that Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes can be seen in attendance the video mentioned. Asst. Attorney General Tony Rampton can be seen in the video, not Reyes.