Posted on 01/02/2016 8:26:28 PM PST by TBP
When I was in the States, I hunted Pheasant every fall on the refuge. It is miles from anything but ranches. They may not have even had to occupy the building, just bring in a few travel trailers and camp next to it. It is or was on one of the few little hills in the sage brush. There is a viewing tower on the hill as well. If the government had any sense, which it no longer does. They would just ignore them. There is not a thing they will upset, except maybe a few Pheasant and coyotes..
The only way this travesty of justice gets media exposure is by the actions of these brave militiamen.
The real story is what is the reason is the US Government sending these 2 men back to Federal Prison?
You can bet this wouldn’t be happening if the ranchers weren’t WHITE men.
So it is okay to potentially kill people and destroy property? Maybe I am misunderstanding the story, but why shouldn’t these people go to jail? Kindly explain it to me. These people don’t seem to be any better than those Earth Liberation Front loons who also destroyed property.
The federal government was interfering with their business. They did not burn federal property as an act of protest or arson, they burned it to fulfill their obligation as good husbandmen of land entrusted to their care.
The feds were not doing the job for which the ranchers paid them - namely, to improve and maintain the grazing capacity.
These nobs have no common sense and usually zero experience in practical range management - BUT they love to throw their weight around, forcing ranchers to follow their idiotic directives. They especially love to cause financial damage to hard-working cattlemen. This case sounds very familiar to anyone who has delt with them regarding such matters.
Usually the "For what" is to protect land from devastating fires that occur because you don't do a controlled burn every so many years. A controlled burn removes the small brush that builds up over time, makes the land walkable and is wonderful in that it usually prevents trees from being burned in the future because what fires do happen are not bad enough to damage them.
It was just common sense before everyone went coo-coo thinking it was a bad thing. Now fires risk growing so bad that you do endanger whole communities.
Okay, thanks for the explanation. I obviously don’t understand the story to the fullest extent. This stuff with the Bundy people has been going on since before I was born.
The Whiskey Tax in question was repealed < 10 yr later. Coinkidense?
You are the one who needs to take a deep breath.
I did not accuse them of having guns.
I did not confirm that they have guns.
I also pointed out that the writer of the news story contradicted himself. Or at least that is the way I read it.
I merely commented that if they do, as one line in the story said, have guns they are in trouble.
My own opinion is that they are well versed in the gun laws and are smart enough not to take weapons into a federal building.
But then hot tempers turn brains off sometimes.
The government’s side of the story:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Resentenced to Five Years in Prison
EUGENE, Ore. – Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, both residents of Diamond, Oregon in Harney County, were sentenced to five years in prison by Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for arsons they committed on federal lands.
A jury sitting in Pendleton, Oregon found the Hammonds guilty of the arsons after a two-week trial in June 2012. The trial involved allegations that the Hammonds, owners of Hammond Ranches, Inc., ignited a series of fires on lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), on which the Hammonds had grazing rights leased to them for their cattle operation.
The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere†matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.†One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.
The jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires†in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons.
By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.†The court vacated the original, unlawful sentences and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced “in compliance with the law.†In March 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds’ petitions for certiorari. Today, Chief Judge Aiken imposed five year prison terms on each of the Hammonds, with credit for time they already served.
“We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires. Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze†stated Acting U.S. Attorney Billy Williams.
“Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States’ property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison. These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy.â€
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Frank R Papagni, Jr., AnneMarie Sgarlata and Kelly Zusman handled the prosecution of this case.
As an American, and a veteran, the Federal government should NOT use whatever force is necessary. They should stop and realize this is a deep wrong.
Two men sent to prison for a very small grassfire. They went and served their sentence and were released.
A federal prosecutor appealed the sentence and won, getting more time (5 years) for a small grassfire.
They have been out, living their life again, and the government calls and says to go back and do several more years.
This is Un American and no, the government is not justified in going in and doing a Waco.
They already went to jail you imbecile.
Okay, I was going by this article’s excerpt.
The people in the East and urban areas in general don’t understand this.
The old expression for Nevada’s counties, even Clark County in its old days when Bundy’s ancestors living there had virtually no neighbors, was “cow counties”.
It was all about cows and cattlemen, ranchers if you will.
People living in retirement, casinos, hotels, etc. weren’t there.
Federal bureaucrats weren’t around, ‘managing’ the land.
The federal government is lawless. While I may or may not support these ranchers, Thomas Jefferson and I have to firmly disagree with you.
War is coming Reno. Pick sides carefully.
Better to occupy the miscreant courthouse.
From the media log link (other FR thread)
Moon Hill prescribed burn (perhaps written by Mrs. Hammond)
http://www.landrights.org/or/Hammond/Moon%20Hill%20Fire%20discussion.docx
Ranchers and officials feud over water rights.
http://www.landrights.org/or/Hammond/Ranchers%20and%20officials%20feud%20over%20water%20rights.docx
This looks to be that the feds want the water, and want to transport it to wherever they choose. Refuge, or other location.
The only terrorists in this and similar scenarios is the federal government who illegally and unconstitutionally hold state lands. Unconstitutional federal acts are acts of tyranny.
Art I, Sec 8, Cl 17 of the U.S. Constitution makes it clear that the feds may hold land in a state IF
1) the purpose for the land is for NEEDFUL federal buildings like forts or dock-yards and
2) the feds purchased the land after the state legislature consents
Most federal lands do not meet this test and should, therefore, transfer back to the states either willingly or by state commandeering the lands.
“Feel good” National Parks, for instance, are unconstitutional. Notice that unconstitutional federal acts, like National Parks, no matter how good it feels at the time, can turn ugly at any time, because tyranny never remains benign.
Government by nature is not a benign agent. Government is at its core is an agent of force. That is why the federal government must be ruled and limited by the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.
“The feds appear to be well informed and agents-informants are probably planted among the protestors in my estimation.”
Almost guaranteed. There’s probably a pack of them at every meeting. And probably getting people revved up. Of course, they wouldn’t dare infiltrate a Mosque or a Chicago gang.
Perhaps a minor point, but that is an extremely desolate and sparsely populated part or Oregon. That would make is easier for the feds to control the "narrative."
Will this be another Ruby Ridge or Waco/Branch Davidian massacre?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.