[volunbeer]

The nation owns the land - therefore the nation owns the buildings on it giving the government the right of protecting the property.

Bundy situation - adjudicated over and over with full due process

This situation - I don’t know as much, but this was adjudicated so there was due process and the right to appeal any further sentence still exists (due process again)

The common denominator? Outside groups referring to themselves as militia with an itch to fight the government in some kind of Rambo fantasy. No comparison and completely unfair to call someone a loyalist when the aggrieved parties in these two situations were given due process. Bundy was a thief IMO - he grazed on grass he did not own and he refused to pay for it. As I said over and over (I was also called a loyalist on those threads) during that situation - even Bundy admitted he was wrong in court. Furthermore, Bundy would have had a much higher moral standing in my mind if he had donated the exact amount of the fees to a charity of his choice instead of pocketing the money he should have spent on grazing rights like my neighbors who ranch.

[P-Marlowe]

The nation owns the land

According to the Constitution, the State of Oregon owns the land. The Constitution is very clear about what kind of land and for what purposes the government of the United States can own land inside a sovereign state and what it can't.

A national wildlife preserve is not one of those purposes.

[freedomjusticeruleoflaw]

You are confused. The federal government is a creature of the States making. It was created to serve the States. The land it is ALLOWED to own is DEFINED in the Constitution. Please show me where it says that the Feds (which is NOT the “nation”) can own land or buildings just for sake of owning them?

[Smokin' Joe]

Bundy was a thief IMO - he grazed on grass he did not own and he refused to pay for it.

IIRC, Bundy offered payment and it was declined.