Militia Takes Over Wildlife Refuge In Oregon

[JTScribe]

Funny, because I just read that and was going to comment that was the one part I don't agree with: the statement that these guys don't know or care about the Constitution. (I do agree it probably has nothing to do with who is in office. This has been progressing in 1 direction for decades).

I don't know any of these men personally, but I've listened to arguments from Bundy and some of his associates. Their interpretation of the Constitution may differ from the courts, but they make some valid points. The western states should have never been established with this level of federal land ownership, and that is a constitutional issue. No one really addressed it because it wasn't originally done with the intent of the feds acting like the government itself owns it. The government was more of a land manager before. The locals settled it with grazing and water rights, and that was akin to ownership. Now that it's being treated differently, it appears to have been a mistake to have ever made so much land "public land".

Particularly when Federal ownership of land is intended for structures, armories, military bases, etc.

"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings" (Art I, Sect. 8, Clause 17)

 

[HoughMade]

Can an INGO attorney share some insight for why this was prosecuted under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996?

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ132/html/PLAW-104publ132.htm

My guess is because some of the laws at issue were added or amended by this Act. Below are sections of the federal criminal code that were added or amended by this Act and which were charged against the Hammonds in the Superceding Indictment. An Act name is sometime applicable to some of it, all of it or very little of it. For instance, one not need be a terrorist or up for the death penalty to be charged with law that were affected by this Act. I will note that given what happened in April of 1995, people were not real happy with destroying federal property in 1996.

People persist in using Act names to make some sort of rhetorical point (as is being done in the discussion surrounding the topic at hand), but all it is is adding laws to the laws already present or modifying the laws on the books.

(f)(1) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.

(2) Whoever engages in conduct prohibited by this subsection, and as a result of such conduct, directly or proximately causes personal injury or creates a substantial risk of injury to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties, shall be imprisoned for not less than 7 years and not more than 40 years, fined under this title, or both.....

...(n) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who conspires to commit any offense defined in this chapter shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

18 U.S.C.A. § 844f(1) and (2)

(h) Whoever--

(1) uses fire or an explosive to commit any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, or

(2) carries an explosive during the commission of any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States,

including a felony which provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, such person shall be sentenced to imprisonment for 20 years. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person convicted of a violation of this subsection, nor shall the term of imprisonment imposed under this subsection run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment including that imposed for the felony in which the explosive was used or carried.

18 U.S.C.A. § 844h(1)

(n) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who conspires to commit any offense defined in this chapter shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

18 U.S.C.A. § 844n

(i) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both; and if personal injury results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be imprisoned for not less than 7 years and not more than 40 years, fined under this title, or both; and if death results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall also be subject to imprisonment for any term of years, or to the death penalty or to life imprisonment.

18 U.S.C.A. § 844i

(m) A person who conspires to commit an offense under subsection (h) shall be imprisoned for any term of years not exceeding 20, fined under this title, or both.

18 U.S.C.A. § 844m

 

[Kutnupe14]

It seems like these guys want something (which the rest us don't want) to pop off. They have issued any demands that could be reasonably addressed. So what's their endgame? These guys aren't soldiers. With waning public support, what can they possibly hope to accomplish?

 

[HoughMade]

It seems like these guys want something (which the rest us don't want) to pop off. They have issued any demands that could be reasonably addressed. So what's their endgame? These guys aren't soldiers. With waning public support, what can they possibly hope to accomplish?

Their own 3 hots and a cot...with a federal building occupation, to protest for them, to be named later?

 

[dusty88]

It seems like these guys want something (which the rest us don't want) to pop off. They have issued any demands that could be reasonably addressed. So what's their endgame? These guys aren't soldiers. With waning public support, what can they possibly hope to accomplish?

Actually I think if you follow some of the situations out west they have reached their endgame. As Dave said, they are being "legally" starved out. Once you have exhausted the political and legal process, you can make the choice of going up against the government. But once you cross that line, there's probably no going back.

The Bundy ranch situation went relatively well, except that the major media shows the 1 protester on the overpass with a rifle and does not show the hundreds with their hands up that dared the federal agents to be the first to shoot.

It's my opinion (or imagination) that from there these guys got both more frustrated and more emboldened. They should have turned around though when the Oregon militias and the Oathkeepers did not join them. It appears maybe they were determined in their plan and just didn't want to think otherwise. Still if you look at videos currently coming out of the location, they are calm. They might make a better choice soon.

This will wane their public support but it doesn't change the fact that many rural residents, especially in the west, feel oppressed by big government. It may just be "these guys" today but their underlying issue isn't going away with them.

 

[Caleb]

Question I really want to know is, is the government really land grabbing like the bundy's and Hammond say they are?

 

[HoughMade]

Question I really want to know is, is the government really land grabbing like the bundy's and Hammond say they are?

As I understand it, Bundy and the Hammonds never owned the land at issue. It was always owned by the federal government. At least since those groups were involved. The issue was them wanting to do as they pleased with the federal land rather than follow the (admittedly onerous). If you don't own land and you want to use it, you are at the mercy of the owner...even if "that's not the way it used to be".

 

[dusty88]

Question I really want to know is, is the government really land grabbing like the bundy's and Hammond say they are?

I tried to understand that better during the Bundy ranch situation. Here's the way I remember my research, totally in layman's terms.

The large amount of "public" land out west was established somewhat for political reasons at the time of statehood. It was a way of compromising between free state and slave state property. It also made sense for those areas because it takes thousands of acres to graze a cattle herd. So rather than owning the land, some guys bought "grazing rights" or "water rights" while someone else might have the "mineral rights" on the same property. These "rights" came to be treated as ownership over the years. The ranchers were the ones that spend money on land improvements for grazing.
To keep disputes settled, they agreed to government agencies to manage the properties. They began to pay management fees which were supposed to go towards maintenance and improvements as well.

A few decades ago, management was switched to the BLM. The conflicts since then have increased. But basically now we are in a place where average citizen in the US sees these lands as "federal property" and thinks ranchers have been basically getting cheap rent and have no rights or claims.

There are also further conflicts about situations like the Bundy ranch area and county, where many grazing permits were cancelled to preserve a tortoise species. However, this tortoise was not so important where one of Harry Reid's associates were given rights to build a large (subsidized) solar gathering area nearby. I don't know how much of who-said-what is true, but those are some examples.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Question I really want to know is, is the government really land grabbing like the bundy's and Hammond say they are?

Some of both. The Hammond family owns according to one of the previously linked articles 12,000 acres plus a lot more leased, all of which is necessary to maintain the critical mass to produce enough to remain financially viable. The typical federal game for some time has been to jerk the rug out from under people with their leases, sometimes cutting them off from the water rights they duly own, and not only ejecting them from their leased ground but also scooping up their private ground after starving them out. Then, when you consider that these leases are long to indefinite term arrangements, not leases in the sense that you would go to the dealership and lease a new Buick, the land grab argument is further strengthened.

 

[indiucky]

Any INGO'ers been "sparked" yet?

Yep....Just spun the wheel on my ZIPPO and lit up an American Spirit Blue....I think I may need a new wick...

 

[IndyDave1776]

It seems like these guys want something (which the rest us don't want) to pop off. They have issued any demands that could be reasonably addressed. So what's their endgame? These guys aren't soldiers. With waning public support, what can they possibly hope to accomplish?

They are being starved out. They don't really have any options unless you expect them to simply abandon their ranches, private property and leases alike, move to town, and start putting in applications at factories and/or fast food places. When you push people far enough, they will eventually reach a point where they ARE going to fight and not even really give a flying f**k what the outcome is.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yep....Just spun the wheel on my ZIPPO and lit up an American Spirit Blue....I think I may need a new wick...

Thread killer.

 

[indiucky]

As I understand it, Bundy and the Hammonds never owned the land at issue. It was always owned by the federal government

A certain Sicilian American might disagree...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Some of both. The Hammond family owns according to one of the previously linked articles 12,000 acres plus a lot more leased, all of which is necessary to maintain the critical mass to produce enough to remain financially viable. The typical federal game for some time has been to jerk the rug out from under people with their leases, sometimes cutting them off from the water rights they duly own, and not only ejecting them from their leased ground but also scooping up their private ground after starving them out. Then, when you consider that these leases are long to indefinite term arrangements, not leases in the sense that you would go to the dealership and lease a new Buick, the land grab argument is further strengthened.

12,000 Acres?! Geez. You'd think there would be a viable water source they could use. Hell, they could actually probably create their own (could they?). Or would that be prohibitively expensive?

 

[indiucky]

Thread killer.

Technically I am a "Thread killing historian"....


I know you all are going to look at this trailer and say "What does this have to do we anything?" but it actually has some merit to this discussion...I just watched this on Netflix...Some of our legal eagles may remember the case but it shows how murky the lands, land rights, what's federal, what's in trust, what can be taken out of said land etc.....It's a very good story and there is a section where they show a map of the west with all of these parcels of different Federal lands color coded....As to what their use is, can be, etc....You get into Indian land, or Indian land held in a federal trust and it gets murkier still....Anyway a good watch for someone following this story...

[video=youtube;uY2mbNeOVzk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY2mbNeOVzk[/video]

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

12,000 Acres?! Geez. You'd think there would be a viable water source they could use. Hell, they could actually probably create their own (could they?). Or would that be prohibitively expensive?

Out west, access to water is a different can of worms than it is in the mushy Midwest.

 

[HoughMade]

The militia types may not care, but the BLM had a system for allowing controlled burns requested by the lessees which the BLM would execute, pay for and assume liability for. While it seems everyone else in the area who wanted a controlled burn went by the book, the Hammonds chose not to.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Out west, access to water is a different can of worms than it is in the mushy Midwest.

Yeah, I haven't a clue about it out that way. Obviously in the south, water is plentiful and better access to the table.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The militia types may not care, but the BLM had a system for allowing controlled burns requested by the lessees which the BLM would execute, pay for and assume liability for. While it seems everyone else in the area who wanted a controlled burn went by the book, the Hammonds chose not to.

Who doesn't like to set their own fires? Hammond didn't want the feds to have all the fun.

Kut (thinks it would be cool to see all that land ablaze....legally)

 

[indiucky]

Kut (thinks it would be cool to see all that land ablaze....legally)

Photo of kut taken on his last vacation.....