OR - Militia members occupy federal building in Oregon after protest #1

[K_Z]

Yes. A friend of mine pointed out, and I agree, how usually attempts to decrease the powers of government have the opposite effect and result in an increase of power. (Shay's Rebellion, Whiskey Rebellion, Civil War, etc.) So this is historically the wrong way to go about getting what they want and it will be interesting to see what the outcome is for that reason. Especially in comparison to Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the previous Bundy stand off. Will they get what they want? Will it all go away? Will the government come up with new initiatives and powers in an attempt to prevent this?

JMO

I personally don't think anything good will come out of this. I think it's highly possible all the men on the wildlife refuge will be killed.

The ranchers whose land was intentionally flooded by BLM (Bureau of Land Management, not Black Lives Matter, lol!) have sold out to the government and moved on. They won't be coming back no matter what happens.

 

[Lilibet]

Could I request that when you refer to Black Lives Matter you spell it out and not abbreviate it BLM. This thread has to do with the BLM--Bureau of Land Management, so IMO that's what BLM stands for on this thread. It gets very confusing if both abbreviations are used. Thanks!

 

[bluesneakers]

Oh, silly me.

BURNS, Ore. - The militia group at the center of a standoff on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon said they are occupying federal land in protest in order to restore the constitution.

Ammon Bundy -- the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in an armed standoff with the government over grazing rights -- said his group will stay there as long as it takes to see justice served.

On Monday, he told reporters that the collective of protesters had decided to name themselves "Citizens for Constitutional Freedom."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-militia-names-themselves-citizens-for-constitutional-freedom/

 

[KaaBoom]

[video=youtube;gMBj70endd0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMBj70endd0[/video]

 

[K_Z]

Whenever the federal government decides to acquire land, someone who is already there is affected. Maybe they have an inholding, or their property simply abuts the new federal parcel. If they have an inholding, usually that person is expected to simply capitulate and give up their land to the government, in exchange for "something" to compensate them. That could be money to vacate, a life lease with the land turning over to the government on the death of the owner, water rights, etc. Or, things like the Indian Reservations and treaties.

The ultimate goal of the government entities, once they have started the process to acquire large parcels of land for parks, wilderness, forestry, etc-- is to figure out how to drive out,or wait out, the "inholdings" that are stubborn, and won't move on. Some folks get pretty worked up about that, particularly if a parcel of land has been in their family for generations. So they stand their ground (literally and figuratively) to try and save their land from being incorporated into whatever plan the government has for the area.

People being people, with emotions and intellects, both sides often dig in, and antagonize each other. This is exactly what happened with the Hubbard ranch and the government. BOTH SIDES were doing stuff they shouldn't be doing. The Hubbards were vindictive, but so were the authorities in charge of the wildlife refuge. Both sides went out of their way to antagonize the other, and the "government" side had a lot more power than the Hubbard family.

The Bundys are just glomming onto this feud opportunistically-- no differently than Black Lives Matter when they show up and they aren't wanted by the families they purport to represent. (Jamar Clark in Minnesota is a good example-- the family was in opposition to what Black Lives Matter was doing occupying and vandalizing the 4th Police Precinct.) The Bundy's have the same issues being aggrieved about land usage and ownership.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I heard on the radio just now, don't have a link but it was NPR so I'm sure a transcript will be posted eventually, a local speaking. It may have been the sheriff but I don't think so. Anyway, he pointed out, quite correctly, that these guys say they are all about local control of the land, yet not one of them is a local and most locals want them to go away.

ETA: I'm paraphrasing, of course, but that was the gist.

 

[LaborDayRN]

Whenever the federal government decides to acquire land, someone who is already there is affected. Maybe they have an inholding, or their property simply abuts the new federal parcel. If they have an inholding, usually that person is expected to simply capitulate and give up their land to the government, in exchange for "something" to compensate them. That could be money to vacate, a life lease with the land turning over to the government on the death of the owner, water rights, etc. Or, things like the Indian Reservations and treaties.

The ultimate goal of the government entities, once they have started the process to acquire large parcels of land for parks, wilderness, forestry, etc-- is to figure out how to drive out,or wait out, the "inholdings" that are stubborn, and won't move on. Some folks get pretty worked up about that, particularly if a parcel of land has been in their family for generations. So they stand their ground (literally and figuratively) to try and save their land from being incorporated into whatever plan the government has for the area.

People being people, with emotions and intellects, both sides often dig in, and antagonize each other. This is exactly what happened with the Hubbard ranch and the government. BOTH SIDES were doing stuff they shouldn't be doing. The Hubbards were vindictive, but so were the authorities in charge of the wildlife refuge. Both sides went out of their way to antagonize the other, and the "government" side had a lot more power than the Hubbard family.

The Bundys are just glomming onto this feud opportunistically-- no differently than Black Lives Matter when they show up and they aren't wanted by the families they purport to represent. (Jamar Clark in Minnesota is a good example-- the family was in opposition to what Black Lives Matter was doing occupying and vandalizing the 4th Police Precinct.) The Bundy's have the same issues being aggrieved about land usage and ownership.

BBM: Did you mean the Hammond ranch? As far as I know the dispute between the Hammonds and the BLM had nothing to do with BLM taking land from the Hammonds. It goes back to a multiple fires started by the Hammonds in 1991, 2001 and 2006.

 

[Jolynna]

In my opinion, the second ruling is quasi double-jeopardy and excessive. Five years for back-burning up a bunch of sagebrush in the middle of nowhere which, according to the first judge, didn't amount to even a hundred dollars of damage? One of the fires, set in 2001, was a prescribed burn on Hammond’s private property; a routine range improvement practice. The other fire, set on Hammond’s private property in 2006, was a back-burn intended to protect the ranch’s winter pasture from a lightening fire on adjacent federal land. According to the Bureau of Land Management itself, the fire actually improved the conditions of the range.

Yet the Hammonds have to pay $400,000 PLUS plus they have had an additional and NEW sentence added to their ALREADY served sentenced prison time? Because of terrorism charges under the Dept. of Homeland security? Talk about overreach...

The hashtags on twitter make the family sound like a bunch of dangerous ****s. Yet court records show that the Hammonds are a family that serves on the local school board, volunteers in community clubs and counsels, and donates time, money and meat each year to local youth organizations and senior groups. District Court Judge Michael Hogan, the federal judge who first saw their case, went on record calling the Hammonds “the salt of their community.”

Source: https://wlj.net/article-11781-additional-jail-time-for-ranchers’-range-fires.html

 

[Lilibet]

LE experts expect LE will wait this out. It's a very interesting article.

Outside Burns, the 20 or so armed occupiers at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge haven't become violent. No one is being held hostage. The reserve isn't an essential government operation."Silence and patience are friends that never betray, particularly for law enforcement," said Brian Levin, director of California State University's Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism and a former New York police officer.
"We have a group of armed squatters who are extremists holed up on a desolate unoccupied compound," Levin said. "There is no imminent threat to public safety, to commerce or structures at this time."

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...ait-them-out_law_enfor.html#incart_river_home

 

[i.b.nora]

Oh man, these guys in their little camoflauge suits.

 

[EllieBee]

The Bundy's are BREAKING THE LAW. And I have read on many many threads here on WS that people who break laws deserve no mercy from LE. They are CRIMINALS.

If they do not respect and abide by the law, they deserve whatever they get, even if it being shot to death, armed or not.

Or so I have been told.

Whenever the federal government decides to acquire land, someone who is already there is affected. Maybe they have an inholding, or their property simply abuts the new federal parcel. If they have an inholding, usually that person is expected to simply capitulate and give up their land to the government, in exchange for "something" to compensate them. That could be money to vacate, a life lease with the land turning over to the government on the death of the owner, water rights, etc. Or, things like the Indian Reservations and treaties.

The ultimate goal of the government entities, once they have started the process to acquire large parcels of land for parks, wilderness, forestry, etc-- is to figure out how to drive out,or wait out, the "inholdings" that are stubborn, and won't move on. Some folks get pretty worked up about that, particularly if a parcel of land has been in their family for generations. So they stand their ground (literally and figuratively) to try and save their land from being incorporated into whatever plan the government has for the area.

People being people, with emotions and intellects, both sides often dig in, and antagonize each other. This is exactly what happened with the Hubbard ranch and the government. BOTH SIDES were doing stuff they shouldn't be doing. The Hubbards were vindictive, but so were the authorities in charge of the wildlife refuge. Both sides went out of their way to antagonize the other, and the "government" side had a lot more power than the Hubbard family.

The Bundys are just glomming onto this feud opportunistically-- no differently than Black Lives Matter when they show up and they aren't wanted by the families they purport to represent. (Jamar Clark in Minnesota is a good example-- the family was in opposition to what Black Lives Matter was doing occupying and vandalizing the 4th Police Precinct.) The Bundy's have the same issues being aggrieved about land usage and ownership.

 

[LaborDayRN]

In my opinion, the second ruling is quasi double-jeopardy and excessive. Five years for back-burning up a bunch of sagebrush in the middle of nowhere which, according to the first judge, didn't amount to even a hundred dollars of damage? One of the fires, set in 2001, was a prescribed burn on Hammond’s private property; a routine range improvement practice. The other fire, set on Hammond’s private property in 2006, was a back-burn intended to protect the ranch’s winter pasture from a lightening fire on adjacent federal land. According to the Bureau of Land Management itself, the fire actually improved the conditions of the range.

Yet the Hammonds have to pay $400,000 PLUS plus they have had an additional and NEW sentence added to their ALREADY served sentenced prison time? Because of terrorism charges under the Dept. of Homeland security? Talk about overreach...

The hashtags on twitter make the family sound like a bunch of dangerous ****s. Yet court records show that the Hammonds are a family that serves on the local school board, volunteers in community clubs and counsels, and donates time, money and meat each year to local youth organizations and senior groups. District Court Judge Michael Hogan, the federal judge who first saw their case, went on record calling the Hammonds “the salt of their community.”

Source: https://wlj.net/article-11781-additional-jail-time-for-ranchers’-range-fires.html

Is this the 2001 fire you're talking about? This is from the Supreme Court decision:

The September 2001 fire. On September 30,
2001, petitioners led an unauthorized hunting expedition
on federal land and illegally shot several deer.
C.A. E.R. 77, 82, 87-89, 92-96, 239-240. A BLM district
manager, who was lawfully hunting in the same
area, ran into and spoke with Dwight at about 8 a.m.;
witnessed the shooting of several deer about 30 to 45
minutes later; and then briefly saw Steven at the
scene before Steven ducked into the brush to hide. Id.
at 50-51, 79, 92-94, 96-97. As the district manager
drove away in his truck with his companions, they saw
a group of four men behind them carrying rifles. Id.
at 95. The district manager told his companions that
he was “very uncomfortable with the situation, and
[they] needed to leave,” which they did. Id. at 95-96.
After the district manager departed, Steven handed
out boxes of matches and stated that “we [a]re
going to light up the whole country on fire.” C.A. E.R.
202-203; see Pet. App. 3; see also C.A. E.R. 97-99
(sequence of events). Steven gave one of the boxes of
matches to his then 13-year-old nephew, Dusty Hammond,
and instructed the boy to walk in the direction
along the fence line and to drop the lit matches “until
[he] r[a]n out.” C.A. E.R. 204-205, 207. Dusty complied,
dropping lit matches to the grass along the
fence line separating petitioners’ land from federal
land.

http://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...02/12/hammond-cert2-br_in_opp-osg_aay_v2b.pdf

 

[ILOKAL]

I wouldn't say afraid. but I will admit that I'm a little trepidatious around large crowds of idiots with guns. It's just one of my many foibles.

They might be afraid of the same thing which is why they are exercising their right to bear arms.

 

[LaborDayRN]

And this:

Dusty observed
smoke rising from behind him in the direction
in which Steven had walked. Id. at 206. Dusty later
testified that he assumed that the smoke had been
4
caused by “everybody else that walked the other direction.”
Ibid.
The fire quickly raged out of control, trapping
Dusty near a creek and forcing others who were
camping and hunting in the area to flee. Pet. App. 3;
C.A. E.R. 97-100, 158-159, 207. Dusty thought he
“was going to get burned up” by the 8-to-10-foot-high
flames, but the 13-year-old managed to escape on his
own. C.A. E.R. 207. The fire damaged 139 acres of
federal land and required that the tract be removed
from production for two growing seasons. Pet. App. 3;
C.A. E.R. 287-289.
The fire destroyed any evidence of petitioners’ illegal
deer hunt. C.A. E.R. 248-250. Petitioners then
attempted to cover up their arson. When Dusty made
it back to the ranch after escaping the fire, Dwight
and Steven both ordered him to “keep [his] mouth
shut” about what they had done. Id. at 210-211. Dusty
feared Steven and kept the arson secret for years.
Id. at 212. Steven also called BLM a few hours after
the fire was started, falsely reporting that he planned
to do a prescribed burn confined to his own land. Id.
at 234-235; Gov’t C.A. Br. 9. When later questioned
by BLM investigators, petitioners denied being involved
in the fire.

http://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...02/12/hammond-cert2-br_in_opp-osg_aay_v2b.pdf

 

[EllieBee]

They might be afraid of the same thing which is why they are exercising their right to bear arms.

They are breaking the law. They are now criminals, not protesters.

 

[bluesneakers]

I wouldn't say afraid. but I will admit that I'm a little trepidatious around large crowds of idiots with guns. It's just one of my many foibles.

Especially when they're so self-righteous.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

They might be afraid of the same thing which is why they are exercising their right to bear arms.

Then they should have stayed home. MOO.

 

[Boytwnmom]

and I have varying opinions depending on the specific circumstances. Our family vacation time is basically spent enjoying the federally owned lands in the west. I am a huge supporter of national parks and the forest service. But I have also come to appreciate the issues large federal holdings cause for the local population. It's not something I know a whole lot about given I live in New England but some of these cases have made me more aware of the impact of federal policies on local populations.

I read the background on the Hammond case and, on balance, I do have sympathy for them. They actually have nothing to do with the protest but I do believe the federal government has gone after them out of proportion to their wrongdoing. From what I understand and believe they (1) set a backfire to prevent their own land and buildings from burning (this is common practice by the firefighters-my DH was one in the summers when he was younger) and (2) set another controlled burn to eliminate invasives and fire danger. They were charged with terrorist offenses and yet were only sentenced to under the minimum by the judge who must have also felt the charges were exaggerated. Then the feds appealed and now they each have to serve 5 more years. I feel this is overreach on the part of the feds. Altogether the Hammonds burned about 140 acres of federal land. That is very little. The Hammonds are pretty universally loved and respected as valuable and generous community members. But over the years they have repeatedly clashed with the feds, specifically the BLM.

The BLM is the federal land related agency I know the least about and also the one that tends to generate the most criticism because of their practices. I think this is a reasonable topic of discussion. Just how much land should the federal government be allowed to own in a state and for what purposes? Does the state have a legitimate interest in allowing its citizens to farm, ranch, utilize the land within that state to make a living and keep certain ways of life, such as ranching, alive?

I think the Bundy's are basically nuts and the Hammonds themselves wanted nothing to do with them. But the ridiculous nature of the current "occupation" does not eliminate the fact that there are legitimate issues that probably need to be addressed. I know from personal legal experience that when the federal government wields it's power against a person or entity it is almost impossible to outlast them. They have essentially unlimited resources and they will bring them all to bear.

Couple articles about the actual people behind what was the actual issue:

http://www.thefencepost.com/news/18847695-113/two-members-of-oregons-hammond-family-to-serve

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/04/the-mysterious-fires-that-led-to-the-bundy-clans-oregon-standoff/

And an article from this evening with a short history of federal land issues in Oregon. The federal government owns more than 50% of the land in Oregon.

the federal government controls 84.9 percent of Nevada, 64.9 percent of Utah, 61.9 percent of Idaho, 61.2 percent of Alaska, 52.9 percent of Oregon and 48.1 percent of Wyoming.

There is bound to be tension when urban professionals out of Washington own and control most of the land in the west especially when that land has been subjected to ever increasing regulation that means long time ranchers can no longer make a living and when communities of these ranchers can no longer maintain their way of life.

That is an interesting aspect of this situation. Some members of the public actually appreciate that land is set aside by the federal government as wetlands, sanctuaries, refuges for our wildlife. So what makes these people think that the land should be given to them instead of being used for what another group of Americans want it used for? Do they also want Yellowstone back for ranching and mining? Where would it stop?

 

[bluesneakers]

They are breaking the law. They are now criminals, not protesters.

They're criminals who stopped being protestors when they became armed occupiers.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Regarding the Hammonds' sentence.

The crime of which they were convicted carried a MANDATORY 5-year sentence. The judge who gave them less time BROKE that law.

The government appealed the sentence and they were re-sentenced to the mandatory 5 years.

There was no double jeopardy as they weren't found not guilty and then tried again.

It seems to me anyone who thinks the sentence was unnecessarily harsh should work to have the law changed rather than defend its not being enforced, by a judge, no less.

But the Hammonds aren't the issue for the occupiers. They've made that clear, IMO.