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

[bluesneakers]

Of course, that same "infringement" is why this began in the first place.

What infringement, specifically?

 

[EllieBee]

I'm trying to figure out how what they're doing is "in accordance with the Constitution" and what rights they believe have been infringed. They said they have to use their 2nd Amendment rights to defend their 1st Amendment rights, but I've seen no evidence of anyone taking away their 1st (or 2nd) Amendment rights. The obvious conclusion, obviously, is they understand the Constitution and I do not. I'll bet they know it even better than John Roberts does.

More like using their 2nd Amendment rights to defend their 1st Amendment rights, while defying portions of the 5th Amendment. It's like a buffet, see. They only obey the laws they like.

 

[EllieBee]

Thank you.

The terrorism law is poorly written and needs to be changed immediately so that over zealous feds can't misuse it again. (imo)

Breaking the law is not a substitute for changing it.

Can't do the time, don't do the crime.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

the other sensationalist "story" appears manufactured by a disaffected and estranged young family member who the feds went after. That story neither makes any sense nor is it consistent with the character of the Hammonds otherwise, which, from all accounts by their neighbors and community members is excellent. If they were willy nilly handing out matches and instructing people to burn indiscriminately much more than 140 acres would have been burned. And they would have endangered and perhaps ruined their own ranch. If it makes no sense I don't tend to believe it. Their actions were consistent with a successful back burn and a targeted burn.

And whatever their actions were I'm pretty darn sure they weren't "terrorism" and I think we should all look askance at the federal government using a "terrorism" charge in such a circumstance.

Fair enough. It's my understanding that there were additional witnesses besides the relative. I may be wrong though.

Since the Hammonds attempted to appeal to the Supreme Court and the court declined, I'm assuming the court didn't think the law under which they were convicted was an issue.

One thing I'm confused about is does the law under which they were convicted specifically mention terrorism, or does it merely mandate a minimum sentence of 5 years for arson on federal property and the only link to terrorism is that it was passed right after the OKC bombing?

Anyone know?

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

So the Fifth Amendment is rubbish, unlike the First and Second Amendments?
As far as I understand, they are all Constitutionally protected.

I did not say that.

 

[bluesneakers]

More like using their 2nd Amendment rights to defend their 1st Amendment rights, while defying portions of the 5th Amendment. It's like a buffet, see. They only obey the laws they like.

I am never hesitant to admit I was privileged to receive the education I received and understand not everyone has had the same privilege, but... :silenced: and ... :silenced:

 

[IzzyBlanche]

What infringement, specifically?

I was wondering the same.

 

[Everyday Grace]

Harney County SO has set up a Facebook page.

One of their posts has links to livestream for their press conferences.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1053209301397189&id=1053081328076653

 

[K_Z]

The grudge/ feud between the Hammond ranch and the government BLM officials goes farther back than the 2 fires. (Sorry-- I erroneously referred to the Hammonds as Hubbards in a previous post-- got the names mixed up.)

The Hammonds are the last "inholding" ranch in that wildlife preserve area. The feds want them gone and off the land. It wouldn't matter how nice or civil minded they are-- the feds want all the inholdings GONE. It makes their management issues easier once the inholdings die off, or are persuaded to leave.

BOTH the Hammonds and the government officials were antagonizing each other-- for decades. Yes, the government officials have a lot more power and ability to make the Hammond's lives miserable. No one "had" to charge the Hammonds with arson/ terrorism-- that was a choice made by prosecutors, as Boytwnmom eloquently pointed out. (I don't believe that story about poaching deer and making 13 year old Dusty set fires, either. It's kind of silly.) The back burner fire was a "gotcha" for the authorities-- finally they had something they could really use to make the Hammonds miserable, and persuade them to leave. IMO.

The Hammond's relatives actually re-directed waterways in the late 1800's that CREATED the nesting/ resting wild bird areas, that ultimately lead to the current situation. The wife did research into records in the 70's that proved that there were more wild birds on their inholding, than in the wildlife preserve-- using the government's own data. So, their family created the land conditions and waterways situation that produced the birds the feds wanted to protect, and for that, they are persecuted at every opportunity and heckled so they will give up their land.

The Hammonds have a lot to be upset about, IMO. They have been treated terribly and unfairly at every step of the way, for decades. Every time they deal with BLM about some aspect of their ranch and livelihood, they have come up with the short end of the deal, perpetually persecuted because they want to keep their land. Read about how the government intentionally diverted waterways to flood other ranchers, and force them off. Once the government officials make up their collective minds that they "want" a parcel, there is nothing-- NOTHING a citizen can do to save their property and/ or livelihood. The citizen ALWAYS loses the battle.

Read up on some of the land battles involving the newest National Park-- the Boundary Waters Canoe Area that borders the US and Canada in MN. It's heartbreaking to see what happens to citizens, and even more maddening to see what the government promises, then reneges on.

Here is just a small aspect of land use dispute:

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/03/11/bwca-land-swap

The Bundy's are glomming onto the personal struggle of the Hammonds, because the Bundy's understand what the issues are. And the Bundy's don't want them to do that.

Yes, the Bundy's are breaking the law. But far less than all of the urban social unrest we've seen in the past 2-3 years, and most of them got away with that criminal behavior because of the current attitudes of "political correctness" toward the criminals. It's absurd that this current situation is even on the news at all. It affects almost no one, relative to the social activists and their violent and disruptive "protests" that affects thousands.

But I doubt this will end peacefully. Testosterone, firearms, and big arrogant personalities that don't want to lose face, on BOTH sides, almost guarantee this will have a fiery ending. (and wall to wall coverage on every news network.)

Both sides want very much to shoot at each other, so I guess that is probably what will happen at some point. Groundhog Day.

 

[Brightbird]

More like using their 2nd Amendment rights to defend their 1st Amendment rights, while defying portions of the 5th Amendment. It's like a buffet, see. They only obey the laws they like.

Selective interpretation of texts to suit ideology, armed takeover of government/public land....just good patriots :facepalm:

 

[Everyday Grace]

Fair enough. It's my understanding that there were additional witnesses besides the relative. I may be wrong though.

Since the Hammonds attempted to appeal to the Supreme Court and the court declined, I'm assuming the court didn't think the law under which they were convicted was an issue.

One thing I'm confused about is does the law under which they were convicted specifically mention terrorism, or does it merely mandate a minimum sentence of 5 years for arson on federal property and the only link to terrorism is that it was passed right after the OKC bombing?

Anyone know?

18 U.S.C. 844 (f)(1)

(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.

http://uscode.regstoday.com/18USC_CHAPTER40.aspx#18USC844

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Selective interpretation of texts to suit ideology, armed takeover of government/public land....just good patriots :facepalm:

Here's one of them right here!

More specifically, [Ryan Payne] came to believe that slavery never really existed in the United States and that African Americans in the antebellum South "didn't view themselves as slaves." He came to believe in "an effort by some Jews to control the world." He came to believe the founders of the United States intended for the states to act as sovereign countries. He came to believe taxes are a form of "legal plunder." He came to believe names are spelled in all-caps on driver's licenses because U.S. citizens are actually "corporate entities." He came to believe U.S. courts are actually foreign admiralty courts. He came to believe that "in most states you have the lawful authority to kill a police officer that is unlawfully trying to arrest you." He came to believe when a newborn child's footprint is made on a birth certificate, that child is effectively entering a life of servitude to the U.S. government, which borrows money from China based on that child's estimated lifetime earning potential.

http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/freedom-fighter/Content?oid=2054145

 

[SophieRose]

the other sensationalist "story" appears manufactured by a disaffected and estranged young family member who the feds went after. That story neither makes any sense nor is it consistent with the character of the Hammonds otherwise, which, from all accounts by their neighbors and community members is excellent. If they were willy nilly handing out matches and instructing people to burn indiscriminately much more than 140 acres would have been burned. And they would have endangered and perhaps ruined their own ranch. If it makes no sense I don't tend to believe it. Their actions were consistent with a successful back burn and a targeted burn.

And whatever their actions were I'm pretty darn sure they weren't "terrorism" and I think we should all look askance at the federal government using a "terrorism" charge in such a circumstance.

There were also other hunters there that day.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2660399-Statement-USattorney.html

At trial, jurors heard from a hunting guide, a hunter and the hunter's father, who saw the Hammonds illegally, slaughter a herd of deer on public land. At least seven deer were shot with others limping or running from the scene. Less than two hours later, the hunting guide and the hunter and his father, were forced to abandon their campsite because a fire was burning in the area where the deer had been shot. The hunting guide's testimony and photographs established fires were burning hours before Steven Hammond called the BLM and said he was going to do a burn of invasive species in the area.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

http://uscode.regstoday.com/18USC_CHAPTER40.aspx#18USC844

Thank you! Wow, that's a pretty broad law.

 

[K_Z]

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

Then all "occupiers" on public land or buildings should be considered criminals. Unless they have a permit to protest, they are all criminals, right? See how that works?

Being armed has nothing to do with it. Pitching tents, vandalism, strewing trash about, crapping on sidewalks, molotov cocktails, burning fires all day and night in residential areas-- that's far worse than simply possessing a firearm, and that's what the "occupiers" of urban centers do. And we have to tolerate that, because they are "upset" about something, and occupying and vandalizing makes them "feel better", right? But they aren't criminals?

These Bundy guys are extremists, and kind of kooky. They are clearly upset about some things. But they haven't hurt anyone or damaged anything, shot anyone or anything, taken hostages, burned down businesses, or blown anything up. So they have guns? So what? They are easily contained and surrounded on that 187,000 acre area of wilderness. We could easily drop a bomb right on top of their heads if we wanted, and it would be over. The town is safe! I hate to see this whipped into a frenzy in the news. This is just not a crisis that deserves that kind of coverage.

The school is not anywhere near the wildlife refuge, from what I can see. There was no "real" threat to the school, other than the news trucks and influx of authorities. I can see why they closed for this week, but it wasn't really necessary, IMO. Security theater.

 

[Montjoy]

JMO, but I don't see any meaningful difference between people defending these terrorists and anyone defending other terrorists, other than a sense of entitlement.

 

[bluesneakers]

Here's one of them right here!



http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/freedom-fighter/Content?oid=2054145

I don't feel any better about these guys than I do the alleged terrorist cells spread across the country. JMO

OMA is Operation Mutual Aid, a loose coalition of militias and sympathetic individuals from across the United States. Payne started the organization in 2013 with Pennsylvania resident Jerry Bruckhart. They designed OMA as a mechanism for using the power of the nation's hundreds of disparate militias to defend all oppressed Americans.
...
"We locked them down," Payne says. "We had counter-sniper positions on their sniper positions. We had at least one guy—sometimes two guys—per BLM agent in there. So, it was a complete tactical superiority. ... If they made one wrong move, every single BLM agent in that camp would've died."

 

[CARIIS]

And the Montana Freemen.

Similar in ideology. Similar in tactics.

in our current "climate" we cant let this go on and on like those others did. I am amazed at myself how pissed I am about this. I just see this going in so many bad ways if they are just not stopped peroid.

dont like your power bill go occupy your utility

kid geta a bad grade go hijack the school

retailer did not do you correct go hijack the store

its just such a violent time and with the internet I am sure there are a lot more people these days that are really thinking these folks are so "cool" -

jmaybe the moon is in the wrong location - get out of the building or we are coming in and we will shoot you

if this was happening in a McDonalds, would this be allowed to go on ?

I think not ............

 

[Jolynna]

The Hammonds are the last "inholding" ranch in that wildlife preserve area. The feds want them gone and off the land. It wouldn't matter how nice or civil minded they are-- the feds want all the inholdings GONE. It makes their management issues easier once the inholdings die off, or are persuaded to leave.

KZ,

This part of your outstanding post says it all.

Unfortunately all of the media and public attention is going to the Bundy's while the fact that our government took advantage of a poorly written law and misused it to confiscate an American citizen's land has been lost in the shuffle.

 

[bluesneakers]

Hi CARIIS!