Reports of "Militia Takeover" in Oregon

[thallub]

They were convicted of arson, sentenced, served their sentences, and were released. THEN some genius decided that the minimum sentence for the offense of which they had been committed was five years, and they hadn't served five years. So ... back to the slammer.

The federal judge failed to abide by US sentencing rules. The federal appeals court vacated the sentence and sent the case back to the judge for re-sentencing IAW federal sentencing rules. The judge complied.

The case was appealed to SCOTUS. SCOTUS declined to grant cert.

[TXAZ]

00,
Wrong, and you missed the point. When the media in general reports on events, where full video shows up after the fact, the spin, politics and BrianWilliamsSyndrome become obvious.

Don't put your trust in the media.

[johnwilliamson062]

If they said they would go home when the rancher was released they might gain some sympathy from a significant minority of the population, but they are saying they intend to seize federal land to be redistributed to locals a la Robin Hood and occupy a federal building for years irrespective of whether the two are pardoned or not. They are basically stating their claim as attempting to form a new country within US borders.

In WACO and to a lesser extent Ruby Ridge, there were people who rightfully owned the land they were on, had not clearly committed any really offensive crimes, and mostly just wanted to be left alone to live a odd/eccentric/independent lifestyle. There still wasn't any widespread support for them.

I don't think much more than one tenth of one percent of the population is going to have much interest at all. Unfortunately, that would be about 300,000 people.

I don't see anyway any of them are getting out of this without a felony. I think it would be easy to see most of them getting out of it in a body bag. As much bad press as Ruby and Waco generated, the US government is not going to sit by while someone seizes federal land and tries to form a country within US borders.

In Mexico protesters make a human chain across the highway and shut off commerce. That would have been slightly more effective, even if armed. Assuming the objective was to obtain the early release of the two imprisoned. I guess it clearly wasn't.

[kilimanjaro]

I wonder if the Hammonds' went to their Congressman, tried to get some action with the agency about controlling the noxious weeds in compliance with federal law. Could have even gotten, or tried to get, a budget earmark for the money to do it. It's certainly been done successfully before in other places.

[johnwilliamson062]

I spent some time looking for more details. One of the things being reported that bothers me is they are there with "militia" members. Well, wouldn't that dictate there is some sort of militia organization the members belong to? If so, which militia is it? No, I don't think they mean the militia as a body of all able bodied citizens.

I ran across this webpage during my search:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...y-persecution/

Interestingly, the top/synopsis doesn't seem all that positive towards them, but the details below certainly lead me to believe there is a lot more going on here than a simple arson charge.

[kilimanjaro]

There is no 'militia', that is made up by the media. It's a loose collection of sovereign rights folks, BLM haters, anti-government folks, that sort.

They're being called 'terrorists' by the left. Being white men with guns rates that label, you know, even though not a shot has been fired.

There is more going on there, it rates a Congressional hearing. Hopefully things won't go south.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

All of the Bundy idiots protests are based on their beliefs that they have the right to take public land for their own personal use to do with as they wish. They are freeloaders of the highest order, far worse than any welfare cheat - the Bundys alone owe millions for the leases they never paid for.

IMHO they should all be charged with taking firearms into a federal building for unlawful purposes and become convicted felons with the loss of firearms rights that goes with that.

[Double Naught Spy]

00,
Wrong, and you missed the point. When the media in general reports on events, where full video shows up after the fact, the spin, politics and BrianWilliamsSyndrome become obvious.

Don't put your trust in the media.

As I stated, you can't blame the media for what these folks are doing and you twisted that around saying you could. That isn't the case. These folks did something stupid before the media was involved. It was claimed that they had fallen for the media's trap...as if the media baited them into taking over the facility. That didn't happen.

Now that something stupid has been done, no doubt the media will pounce on it, but there was no trap set by the media. These people intentionally have made a spectacle of themselves, inviting media attention. They WANT media attention. That is how such protests work. They feel it worked for them with the Bundys and they are working it again. No trap. The extremists are trying to do their own spin doctoring of the story and manipulating of the media.

----------------------

Interestingly, the top/synopsis doesn't seem all that positive towards them, but the details below certainly lead me to believe there is a lot more going on here than a simple arson charge.

Sure enough. They were convicted of 2 counts of arson from two different incidents, half of which they were charged for...
http://legacy.kgw.com/story/news/2014/07/24/12274264/

Here is the ruling...
http://www.landrights.org/or/Hammond...ct%20court.pdf

No doubt a lot is going on. Is it that the government is persecuting the Hammonds or that the Hammonds are troublemakers who continually opt not to follow the law?

[thallub]

The Hammonds have a long history of breaking federal law. Tney were arrested by federal agents in 1994. US Rep. Bob Smith (D) (OR) intervened and saved them from a prison term.

BURNS, Ore. - The arrest of Dwight Hammond, a hot-tempered eastern Oregon cattle rancher, has galvanized a nasty campaign of retribution against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

It all began when federal agents arrested Hammond and his son Steven, Aug. 3.

http://www.hcn.org/issues/20/582

Many of these rancher families have used federal grazing lands for many decades at very cheap rates. They think they own federal land.

The feds should simply barricade the area until the Bundys and their entourage of ne'er do wells crawl out starving.

[Skans]

I'm on the fence on this one. On one hand, you have folks who clearly broke the law because they felt they were entitled to the use of land they don't own. But, they did the time that they were sentenced to; released and then put back in prison? That bothers me. If the judge refuses to follow sentencing guidelines, sanction the judge, fire the judge, vote the judge out - but, don't go rounding up these folks and throw them back in prison!

I can see why people in that neck of the woods are up in arms about the overreach of the federal government. While this issue couldn't be further removed from me personally, both geographically and idealistically, I have to agree, there's something more going on here and I'm not sure the government side doesn't stink to hell!

[dajowi]

Here we go again. A group of people who manage to make the rest of us responsible gun owners look like dangerous kooks. THANKS?

This will be the icing on Obama's cake as he derides America's second amendment at his press conference/intervew...unless of course a mass shooting happens before he goes on the air.

[44 AMP]

the link provided in post #30 provides some very interesting information. While it is obviously slanted in the language used, the facts presented (which should be able to be checked) about the history of the issue show that the govt (BLM, etc) are not lily white defenders of the public trust, nor are the Hammonds evil, thieving terrorists destroying govt property for fun and profit.

There is a lot more going on than what is in the soundbites, and it behooves us to "de-spin" this as much as we can, at least in discussion amongst ourselves.

"terrorists" and "Federal building"...

these might mean different things to different people.

The have guns, they're "terrorists"...but they haven't shot anyone..yet, so why aren't they just "protestors??"

The "Federal building" they took over is essentially a ranger station that was closed for the winter! Also, lets make a clear distinction between those folks who are upset with the govt treatment of the Hammonds, and who peacefully, lawfully protested, and the sub-group lead by the Bundys "occupying a federal building".

I am seeing comments about "sending in the troops", and how the govt's authority being challenged, this cannot be allowed!! etc.

But really, at this point, who are these people hurting? A closed building in the dead of winter on a wildlife refuge? DOES THIS REALLY WARRANT a (para)military response? These people are clearly armed (their own statements) they are saying very naughty things about and to the government, and I think they are HOPING for an armed confrontation.

WHY would any sane person give it to them???

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 44AMP

There is a lot more going on than what is in the soundbites, and it behooves us to "de-spin" this as much as we can, at least in discussion amongst ourselves.

Indeed. Thanks to JohnWilliamson for posting that.

Originally Posted by Thallub

Many of these rancher families have used federal grazing lands for many decades at very cheap rates. They think they own federal land.

The feds should simply barricade the area until the Bundys and their entourage of ne'er do wells crawl out starving.

That may have been federal strategy well before this incident, a largely successful one.

To an eastern audience, where the great bulk of real property has been privately held for a couple of centuries, painting ranchers with grazing and water rights as freeloaders sounds plausible. Yet, if we look at a map of the extraordinary percentage of some western states owned by the federal government, even we can understand that use of the land requires the federal government not to simply sit on those rights.

This protest appears motivated by the odd circumstance of ranchers having served their original sentence as handed down by the judge, the prosecutor having appealed the sentence successfully, and the ranchers having re-sentenced so they have to serve additional years.

We can deride them as "thinking they own" land rights, but that may not do them justice.

[johnwilliamson062]

The feds should simply barricade the area until the Bundys and their entourage of ne'er do wells crawl out starving.

I am left under the impression they are quite well prepared for an extended confrontation. I saw pick-up trucks of supplies moving into the reserve on one video. They aren't exactly in a desolate area either. Once they hit Spring they should be able to get all the supplies they need off the reserve easily.

I certainly don't know what they are thinking, but in the videos released they seem to make it clear they are not leaving period, not that they are not leaving until some demands are met.

We can deride them as "thinking they own" land rights, but that may not do them justice.

Its always interesting to talk to people from different industries about government subsidies. Eastern farmers almost universally purchase crop insurance which is really generous in coverage. How can they afford it? The federal government effectively covers about 70% of the premium. Same type of stuff in manufacturing, financial, etc. Heck, even for the workers there is 'unemployment insurance'. You pay into that to cover your benefits if you need it, right? Sure, except even in a normal economy the premium payments don't cover 50% of the cost of the program. 'Everybody else is living of the big government tit and I'm just working hard earning what I deserve.'

[zukiphile]

Its always interesting to talk to people from different industries about government subsidies. Eastern farmers almost universally purchase crop insurance which is really generous in coverage. Why? The federal government covers about 70% of the premium. Same type of stuff in manufacturing, financial, etc. 'Everybody else is living of the big government tit and I' just working hard earning what I deserve.'

That's almost universal. Although we all live in the same country, some things also just don't translate well. In Ohio, 2000 acres is a big farm; depending on the region and condition, it may be a $7,000,000 asset. Yet a few years ago, I had a sec from Montana who grew up on a 60,000 acre ranch. They were poor even though they had a 10 minute pick-up ride to their mail box.

That's an experience that a fellow in a city whose house sits on a half acre has trouble grasping. I also think we don't have an excellent grasp for the experience of maintaining a multi-generation ranch with a federal agency as your landlord and petulant neighbor.

[johnwilliamson062]

I found an enlightening map:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...icle_nextstory
Hits a little harder than "80%"

[kilimanjaro]

Just for the record, a grazing right, or permit, on federal land is a property right. It cannot be unilaterally altered or cancelled without cause, and is transferable. The permit 'runs with the land' that the permittee holds in fee.

When a permittee is unable to determine from one year to the next what a Government range specialist may require, and is unable to make or expect a return on prudent investment of capital due to mercurial requirements, there is a genuine grievance.

[Clock]

Just watching this on CNN and their position is a little hard for outsiders (or me at least) to follow. They should have hired a PR man and come up with a half a dozen bullet points (pun intended) to explain their position.
Like a lot of Americans, I don't live on a ranch. I've never even visited one. I don't know what water rights or road rights entail, not to mention the history of these people & the government over the last few years. It's like walking into a foreign movie halfway through it.
I don't think they've thought their presentation through very well.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by k

Just for the record, a grazing right, or permit, on federal land is a property right. It cannot be unilaterally altered or cancelled without cause, and is transferable. The permit 'runs with the land' that the permittee holds in fee.

I didn't know that.

If it is part of the fee interest, why does a permit or rights holder pay a fee to the government?

[johnwilliamson062]

I don't think they've thought their presentation through very well.

I'm quite certain their media presentation isn't the only thing they didn't think through.

The more I read about issues with BLM the more I think there might be an issue that deserves a congressional hearing and some public attention. Blockading access roads to grazing areas, fencing off water to which people have rights, etc are all pretty deplorable practices that should be looked at, but who in their right mind thinks seizing a federal building is the way to do that? Even if desperate for attention to your cause, there are other ways. Even if to the extent of needing to be armed and cause some peaceful disruption. Seizing a federal building... You might as well seize Fort Sumter.

I didn't realize that about the grazing right either, although in the link I posted it does talk about them buying other ranches to obtain grazing rights and then those being removed.

[Dreaming100Straight]

It is a right running with the land so long as reasonable fees are paid. As for the rights that the protestors CLAIM to have been violated, that is their story.

[dakota.potts]

I believe many (myself included) would have more sympathy for them if we had heard of attempts to resolve the issue at all before the extreme solution. I haven't heard of any these guys standing before Congress, writing bills, or creating petitions before they jumped to armed sit in

[thallub]

The ranchers reported to Terminal Island federal prison today.

The white house may be refusing to play Bundys game.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said President Obama is aware of the refuge standoff, but said it is a “local law enforcement matter” despite the fact that it involves federal land.

https://gma.yahoo.com/oregon-rancher...pstories.html#

[Colorado Redneck]

Several things that have occurred over the last century are interesting to note.

Much of the federal lands in the west were overgrazed by ranchers that considered their rights to manage that land as superior to the government responsibility to manage the land as good stewards. Lots of top soil erosion was the result of those actions by ranchers. In the past 40 years or so there has been a concerted effort by the managing agencies to do better, and require compliance by ranchers to only graze the allotted number of livestock. That number would likely vary based on the precipitation which western grazing lands depend on. Precipitation cycles make life hard for cattle and sheep businesses. But the government cannot control the weather.

Federal lands are a feature of many recreational activities. Hunting is one of the widest uses of federal lands. Many of us in Colorado are leery as hell of returning public lands to the states to manage. Money buys politicians, and people with untold wealth seem to have a penchant for owning big hunks of beautiful real estate. Pretending that private ownership would result in better uses of public lands is just wrong on so many levels.

I have a good friend that worked for BLM in AZ many years ago. He grew up on a huge ranch (96 sections). There was a rancher not too many miles from where my friend grew up that was grazing BLM land into the sand, not paying his fees, and he refused to allow BLM folks onto the land to count cattle. He was warned several times, and a couple of times he ran BLM employees off with threats of bodily harm (death.) Federal marshals were called in and one morning early, the BLM rounded up all of that guys livestock and took them to Tuscon and sold them at auction. The guy was later convicted of some serious charges and sat in prison for a couple of years.

To pretend this type of contentious situation is all due to the government is disingenuous as hell.

[44 AMP]

Sadly, people working for the government have a long history of immorally, and sometimes even illegally expanding their power and authority.

You can find many examples, over various administrations of this happening. It's not just a REP or DEM thing.

Look and see how people who own land, in a place the government (or more correctly someone in the gov) want to add to their holdings.

Legal harassment, charges, sometimes even convictions, raids and in one case I heard of even what amounted to murder (though it was an "accident", officially).

In the case of the Hammond's, it appears their ranch is the only one left in the valley that the gov has NOT (yet) bought so it could be added to the wildlife refuge.

A lot of people in the west know these things go on. They know it from personal experience (and not just in the west). When some bureaucrat in an alphabet agency decides they want YOUR land to add to their domain, they have lots of ways of making your life miserable, until you finally agree to sell.

Its not right, and it should not happen, but it does, and it is. The Hammond case appears to be one such (if the reported backstory is even remotely true).

The other bunch, the ones using the Hammond case as their justification for occupying federal property, is, in my opinion, in the wrong.

Not all of their complaints about the government's practices are without merit, as I see it. However, real valid issues are being driven under by their extremist stance. I fear they will do more harm, than good, in the end.