Posted on 01/03/2016 4:13:57 PM PST by Kaslin
There’s a lot going on as regards the standoff in Oregon involving three of Cliven Bundy’s sons and the federal government. Jazz has already offered his opinion on the matter, and I mostly agree with him. But I’m not sure the term “armed troops†is appropriate to describe Bundy’s group because that suggests they’re in tactical gear. That doesn’t appear to be true based off what Ammon Bundy’s video posted on Facebook.
Standing for the rights of men & womenBREAKING! SHARE! Standing for the rights of Men & Women. Calling all freedom loving people to come to Harney County Oregon, come to the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The people are finally getting some good use out of a federal facility.
Posted by Bundy Ranch on Saturday, January 2, 2016
He repeated the comments to CNN this morning, calling his group "concerned citizens" who are acting to make sure ranchers have land for their children. It makes sense for Bundy to be concerned about ranchland, given what’s been going on with his father, but his methods are questionable because of how it can be spun in the media. The group showed foresight in taking over a remote, empty facility, but the way it’s being portrayed publicly is different. The Oregonian certainly seems to be ramping up the rhetoric against Bundy’s group (emphasis mine).
Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move.
He has been a steady presence in Burns in recent weeks, questioning people who were critical of the militia’s presence. He typically had a holstered sidearm as he moved around the community.
The problem is The Oregonian is overblowing what Payne actually told Missoula Independent about what the “militia snipers” were doing during the Bundy Ranch situation last year.
“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.”
That’s a lot different than the vague term "federal agents," and suggests Payne was just making sure his men could beat the Bureau of Land Management if it came to that. It’s also possible Payne was just bragging to puff up his own self-image, as BLM denied using snipers. But it’s ridiculous for The Oregonian to not provide better context to Payne’s statements. It’s also foolish to emphasize the fact Payne was armed whenever he talked to people. This may be a bit of a shock to the Left, but Oregon is an open carry state so Payne can carry a handgun without a problem. It doesn’t appear he was walking up to people, showing the gun and yelling, "WHO DO YOU SUPPORT?" but just carrying the gun for protection. It probably seemed odd to some people, but to others in rural Oregon it may not have been an issue. One thing which is an issue is the fact people in Burns don’t want Bundy’s group there. Bob Owens at BearingArms.com has a piece pointing this out, and how it could end up hurting more than helping.
These militiamen seem to be forgetting a key fact: a force opposing government only has a measure of philosophical legitimacy if the people want their support. In this instance, the Hammonds simply want to turn themselves on Monday and finish serving their time.
These militiamen need to stop attempting to hijack the Hammond case in an attempt to stay relevant, and let Dwight and Steven Hammond peacefully turn themselves in and finish serving their time.
So what happens if Bundy’s group decides to stick around and won’t leave the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge? Hopefully, not violence. This is where authorities need to show patience, and not do anything which ends up endangering the lives of anyone. Bundy’s group isn’t hurting people, and, at worst, is guilty of trespassing. Yes, they’re armed but that doesn’t mean SWAT needs to go rolling into the refuge or a drone be used to end the standoff. That would be the worst thing to happen, and bring back memories of Waco and Ruby Ridge. Federal and local authorities will just have to wait out Ammon Bundy and the rest of the occupiers, until they decide to leave. It may take a while, but it’s well worth it if no lives are lost. Bundy’s group needs to go, but having it happen through a haze of gun smoke and bodies is a bad idea.
Counting the days.....and praying.
You might find this interesting...video by Ammon Bundy and local ranchers.
https://www.facebook.com/bundyranch/videos/939148952828580/?pnref=story
Just like us ordinary citizens.
I used to risk my life; traipsing thru wild Utah, until Clinton and his crew put the Escalente-Staircase thing thru.
Now the vehicle ripping ‘roads’ are nicely graded, handicapped bathrooms next to parking lots are in place.
Where’s a vision quest supposed to occur these days?
This is a gross exaggeration.
I’ve told you a million times not to do it.
Robin Hood poached in the King’s forest; IIRC.
For the time being...
That’ll keep yer frequencies a-hoppin’!
The government makes a lot of money off of federal lands through mining rights, grazing rights, and the like. If they are going to lose revenue then why shouldn't they get something for it by having the state buy the land? Especially since the state will turn around and collect all the revenue going forward and not just the part of it they currently get. I'm sure we can come to a deal.
Deadly serious.
Many ranches back in the 1800 were ran on public land. Quite a few were ran illegally on reservations. When the Homestead act was set up, farmers were given title and deed to land that they used to support themselves with for five years. When the rail road was built, the government sold tracks of that land to pay for the railroad.
The ranchers didn’t like it, and were known to send terrorist to burn and hang the land owners so they could keep using land they did not own, did not pay taxes on, and had complete control over (often from New York and London).
The ranchers viewed the new farmers as just another version of vermin to be driven off or killed. The Range Wars that were fought up to the 1900’s were over this. There are families who to this day will not speak to each other over this. It only ended with the hanging of Tom Horn. Or rather it then moved to the the law courts and arson, but at least the killing stopped.
Bundy’s issues were that he was using land that was not his own to ranch on. He also didn’t feel like paying the lease fees, and the owner decided to end the lease. While I do not like what Reid was doing (the plans were to give the rights to a solar company), if you don’t have the title, the land is not yours. It is as simple as that.
I have some land that I lease out. If this type of squatting becomes common, I will reconsider that. If as a land owner I have no recourse to the lessee if they decide not to abide by the contract, it would be foolish to lease anything.
Both sides are wrong on this. Reid wanted to give the rights to a solar farm, and Bundy wanted to have use of land he did not own, had stopped paying fees for, to support his business.
So we had people wanting something for nothing on both sides.
Whether or not they were exercising good land management I do not know. A jury unanimously convicted them of arson, though.
What is indisputable is that they did NOT face double jeopardy. They were tried once and convicted. The minimum penalty for the crime they were convicted of was 5 years in prison. They knew this and the judge knew this. Their lawyers argued the mandatory minimum was unconstitutional and the trial court judge,looking for a way to get around the minimum mandatory a be lenient, went along. This is an extremely unusual action for a trial judge. Normally the minimum mandatory sentence would be handed out and would be appealed to a higher court.
The government appealed and the higher court correctly ruled that the judge violated the law and ordered the mandatory minimum be imposed.
Bottom line is the judge tried to give them illegally light sentences and the appeals court slapped him down. That is not “double jeopardy”.
Except for one thing most of this “wildlife” area was private land. The feds took the land at a reduced rate by making the ranching life too hard to sustain by changing the rules.
The federal government EXISTS to serve the States. It’s purpose is not to generate profit like a corporation. It can raise revenue in many ways, it doesn’t have to acquire land and lease it out like a mindless slumlord. Number 1- 90% of what the federal government does is extra-Constitutional, so it actually needs much less money, not more. And besides, the amount of money it raises leasing so-called federal lands is tiny compared to the total budget.
Lovely.. How about the notion that the federal government should not own 85% of Nevada? Make any sense to you... at all?
In most cases out west they federal acquired the land by beating up on Mexico in the 1840's. And you're right, the government doesn't have to lease out the land for grazing or drilling or mining. But if they did that then wouldn't people like the Bundy's have even more to complain about?
Number 1- 90% of what the federal government does is extra-Constitutional, so it actually needs much less money, not more.
Sure it isn't higher than that?
And besides, the amount of money it raises leasing so-called federal lands is tiny compared to the total budget.
BLM takes in about $5 billion a year from federal land usage. Tiny, compared to other sources as you said. But it's still $5 billion from land that belongs to all the people of the U.S. and not just those in Wyoming or Oregon or Utah. Why should the land be turned over to them so they can reap that money without compensation to all the rest of the country for the lost income? If the Bundys want to buy the grazing land then I'm not opposed to selling it to them. But you and they want it for free.
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.