Militiamen Occupy Oregon Wildlife Office in Protest of Ranchers' Prison Terms

ndcent

ndcent

New member
Wild story coming out of Oregon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/u...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

It seems over one hundred armed people have taken over a vacant government building over a holiday weekend in protest of prison terms for two thug arsonist poachers.

I'm hesitant to identify the group as "militiamen" because technically that would mean they recognize the President as the commander-in-chief of their militia, per article II of the Constitution. Given that they are protesting federal authority rather than acting in accordance with it, they should more properly be classified as armed insurgents.

I'm glad there hasn't been any violence...yet. Should be interesting to see how the story develops and the audacious hypocrisy it brings to full view.
 
Register to hide this ad
Good point about the definition of militia. It seems like the feds can just wait them out since the building is unused and no innocent people are in danger. If they are such great ranchers who is tending their livestock?
 
I just watched an interview from the refuge with Ammon Bundy. His message was embarrassingly inarticulate and conflated. These people need more PR and less guns.
 
I don't necessarily agree with the tactics of the militia folks but I do think they have some basis for being there in order to protest the government's actions. Evidently the Fish and Wildlife department bought up all the land around the Hammond's property to create a wildlife sanctuary and then took a number of retaliatory actions against them when they refused to sell. The first fire was a result of a planned burn on their property to reduce Juniper trees (for which they received permission). It burned 138 acres of unfenced federal land in 2001 but no BLM firefighters were needed to extinguish the fire. The second one alleged was 1 acre in 2006 with lightening induced fires burning all around. For that they're facing 5 years in Federal Prison (at least the son is). The dad apparently is facing 1 year. The feds already own more than 53% of the land in Oregon but that doesn't appear to be sufficient for them.
 
Unfortunately most of that article was sourced from an individual who was explicitly stated as NOT representing the principle participants in this legal struggle, so it kind of makes me question the entirety of it. Not to say that there isn't a legitimate story behind it, but it kind of sounds like the Ammon/Cliven Bundy clan is using the Hammond's legal troubles as a platform for their own agenda.
 
Jimmy_D said:
I don't necessarily agree with the tactics of the militia folks but I do think they have some basis for being there in order to protest the government's actions. Evidently the Fish and Wildlife department bought up all the land around the Hammond's property to create a wildlife sanctuary and then took a number of retaliatory actions against them when they refused to sell. The first fire was a result of a planned burn on their property to reduce Juniper trees (for which they received permission). It burned 138 acres of unfenced federal land in 2001 but no BLM firefighters were needed to extinguish the fire. The second one alleged was 1 acre in 2006 with lightening induced fires burning all around. For that they're facing 5 years in Federal Prison (at least the son is). The dad apparently is facing 1 year. The feds already own more than 53% of the land in Oregon but that doesn't appear to be sufficient for them.
Click to expand...

The Hammond's attorney claim these armed insurgents don't speak for the Hammond Family. It's also understood the arson they were tried and convicted of was to cover up illegal poaching.
 
Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

I'm thinking y'all queda needs locked up ASAP.
 
It's also understood the arson they were tried and convicted of was to cover up illegal poaching
Click to expand...

It's not understood; it's alleged by the feds without any definitive proof; and we all know how truthful the feds can be.
 
ndcent said:
Wild story coming out of Oregon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/u...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

It seems over one hundred armed people have taken over a vacant government building over a holiday weekend in protest of prison terms for two thug arsonist poachers.

I'm hesitant to identify the group as "militiamen" because technically that would mean they recognize the President as the commander-in-chief of their militia, per article II of the Constitution. Given that they are protesting federal authority rather than acting in accordance with it, they should more properly be classified as armed insurgents.

I'm glad there hasn't been any violence...yet. Should be interesting to see how the story develops and the audacious hypocrisy it brings to full view.
Click to expand...
thug arsonist poachers.
nice. no bias there.



read this.
its long, but take your time, im sure you can get through it.


Full Story on What?s Going on In Oregon ? Militia Take Over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge In Protest to Hammond Family Persecution? | The Last Refuge
 
members of their own family admitted to the arson/poaching cover up
Click to expand...

The article you posted a link to may not be total horse sh!t but it's awfully close. I'll refer you to the Hammonds' brief to the Supreme Court which can be found HERE, which does a good job of setting the record straight.
 
Quite the peaceful protest these crazy old white ranchers with "people killers" are having. If only Ferguson, Baltimore, and Chicago could take notes from this.
 
Did you just call me biased and link me to theconservativetreehouse.com? LOL.

I'd like this thread to be one where we talk about the topic and not each other.

The armed seditionists are the topic.
 
Jimmy_D said:
The article you posted a link to may not be total horse sh!t but it's awfully close. I'll refer you to the Hammonds' brief to the Supreme Court which can be found HERE, which does a good job of setting the record straight.
Click to expand...

Read it, but cannot make sense of it. Is this going back to look at the original trial/sentence?
 
ndcent said:
Did you just call me biased and link me to theconservativetreehouse.com? LOL.

I'd like this thread to be one where we talk about the topic and not each other.

The armed seditionists are the topic.
Click to expand...

You do realize you are calling them seditionsits. . .which is your own opinion? Because last time I checked they aren't inciting any riots like what have covered the news the past few months. . .and they even have weapons? So I would call you bias yes.
 
As far as who said what, and what the governments allegations are: when the government charges a case in court, and there is a trial, the charges are in fact allegations. Once both sides present their evidence and witnesses in court in accordance with the federal rules of criminal procedure, and a jury of 12 peers of the defendants concludes beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendants, the allegations become proof in court. Especially after the appeals court has reviewed the matter and ruled in favor of the government. If some of arguments presented here in favor of the convicted men by the "occupiers", or whatever we should call them, are true, these guys would not have been convicted. Heck, the two convicted men want no part of this trespassing.
 
wadle5 said:
You do realize you are calling them seditionsits. . .which is your own opinion? Because last time I checked they aren't inciting any riots like what have covered the news the past few months. . .and they even have weapons? So I would call you bias yes.
Click to expand...

That's my opinion of the topic, not my opinion of another member or their interpretation. I'm striving to focus on the topic, as I'm sure the mods would appreciate. Whether or not you think it's biased or I think another members opinion is biased doesn't matter - we're all entitled to our opinions right?

On sedition...on topic...

Bundy Oregon Standoff Should Be Treated As Sedition
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 4,457 (members: 4, guests: 4,453)

Forum statistics

Threads
278,315
Messages
3,554,130
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Share this page

Trending content

Back
Top