150 armed Militia occupy federal property in Oregon.

[Rogue 9]

Regarding the severity of something like this, and what kind of response it might warrant, I would remind everyone that the American Civil War literally began over Federal property being seized and occupied by armed rebels. Now obviously that was in a very different situation and on a wholly different scale, and I don't think this one incident is going to start a civil war outside of these militia assholes' wet dreams, but still, this kind of thing is serious shit.

Armed rebels who threatened war should the government attempt to enforce the law, I might add. These fuckers are doing the exact same thing as the Confederate secessionists on a smaller scale.

[Grumman]

Armed rebels who threatened war should the government attempt to enforce the law, I might add. These fuckers are doing the exact same thing as the Confederate secessionists on a smaller scale.

No, they aren't. They're protesting against what they consider an overly-liberal application of an anti-terrorism statute to punish what appears to be negligence in allowing a burn-off to spread off of the ranchers' own property, as opposed to the Confederates, whose cause was enslaving their fellow man. When someone accuses you of blowing things out of proportion so you can throw the book at them, how does taking this protest as an act of war do anything but prove you're even worse than they think you are?

[Lonestar]

Armed rebels who threatened war should the government attempt to enforce the law, I might add. These fuckers are doing the exact same thing as the Confederate secessionists on a smaller scale.

They're bombarding something with artillery?

[Jub]

Armed rebels who threatened war should the government attempt to enforce the law, I might add. These fuckers are doing the exact same thing as the Confederate secessionists on a smaller scale.

No, they aren't. They're protesting against what they consider an overly-liberal application of an anti-terrorism statute to punish what appears to be negligence in allowing a burn-off to spread off of the ranchers' own property, as opposed to the Confederates, whose cause was enslaving their fellow man. When someone accuses you of blowing things out of proportion so you can throw the book at them, how does taking this protest as an act of war do anything but prove you're even worse than they think you are?

So why do they need to be armed and make threats to accomplish this?

[The Romulan Republic]

Armed rebels who threatened war should the government attempt to enforce the law, I might add. These fuckers are doing the exact same thing as the Confederate secessionists on a smaller scale.

They're bombarding something with artillery?

No, obviously not, or Obama would have to actually grow a nut sack and send in the National Guard.

However, they are an armed group seizing government property. That's the parallel.

[Lonestar]

I wonder if Rogue 9 would say that about the Indian occupation of Alcatraz.

(Somehow, I suspect not).

[Gandalf]

Every picture I can find of this building makes it look like a decently sized house, and the Bundys claim to have a hundred and fifty people in there. The reporting is a little vague on this.

I wager cabin fever is a bigger long term threat to them than the government.

[The Romulan Republic]

Or they're grossly inflating their real numbers (we can only hope).

Or they've got a hill-billy tent village in the making.

My big fear is that the Donald will be stupid enough to support their actions for a bit of attention whoring. That seems the fastest reasonably plausible way, short of an actual battle or massacre, to turn this into something approaching a national crisis.

[Simon_Jester]

Basically, there's a big difference between an unarmed group (which, if nothing else, will leave when you send the police to arrest them) and an armed group (which will presumably shoot at the police if you try to arrest them).

When an unarmed group does something like this, it's protest- because they are protesting the actions of the state while still acknowledging the state's prerogative to make and enforce the law.

When an armed group does it, it's rebellion- because they are NOT acknowledging the state's prerogative to make and enforce law. They are saying "your police force is just another armed gang as far as we're concerned."

[Zaune]

I'd also like to point out that from a purely pragmatic viewpoint, giving these guys preferential treatment because they brought guns and expressed a willingness to use them when Occupy pointedly did not is going to send the message that the police only respect the 1st Amendment rights of people they can't rough up and tear-gas with impunity.

Nothing good can possibly come of setting that precedent.

[Rogue 9]

Armed rebels who threatened war should the government attempt to enforce the law, I might add. These fuckers are doing the exact same thing as the Confederate secessionists on a smaller scale.

They're bombarding something with artillery?

Earlier. It took the Confederates four months to start bombarding stuff with artillery, after all; they started out by seizing every federal facility they could lay their hands on. I suppose John Brown would also be an apt comparison.

[Channel72]

I can sympathize with the desire to see the Feds stomp these guys out of existence, but the idea of just fucking ignoring them kind of appeals to me. It's like, they take over some remote station, and they think they're being all patriotic and standing up to "tyranny" and everything... somehow I feel like an appropriate response from the Feds might be a giant "meh... whatever, nobody cares".

Of course, I realize that ignoring them may potentially backfire since they might start multiplying and doing more annoying things. But a Ruby Ridge style Federal Raid will certainly cause further "blowback" down the line. At least until a Republican gets voted into office, at which point the Bundys and their plucky group of ragtag rebels will silently fade away.

[Lonestar]

I'd also like to point out that from a purely pragmatic viewpoint, giving these guys preferential treatment because they brought guns and expressed a willingness to use them when Occupy pointedly did not is going to send the message that the police only respect the 1st Amendment rights of people they can't rough up and tear-gas with impunity.

We already know that. Everyone knows that. But it's good to read some 2nd Amendment haters actually verbalizing it in a thread.

[Dominus Atheos]

Minor nitpick about a personal pet-peeve of mine:

Please stop calling non-Americans "2nd Amendment haters", it's embarrassing to those of us who realize that the US constitution is the US constitution and not the world constitution. Likewise, it would be silly for Zaune to attack you for being a republican (small "r") even though you presumably oppose the concept of a monarchy.

[Zaune]

And for your information, Lonestar, I believe that if the United States has really sunk to that level then anyone attending a political protest has every right to bring a gun with them for their own protection.

[the atom]

I don't understand this. How the fuck was nobody even arrested last year? I can understand the feds not wanting to massacre a bunch of civilians on the desert with Stryker or something, but the fact that they weren't all arrested after they dispersed is all kinds of fucked. The nearly non-existent Federal response to this is even worse.

If this was Canada, they'd be paid a visit from a LAV at minimum, even assuming outright martial law wasn't declared.

[Broomstick]

Better than killing them outright. This is an isolated building, and it is winter. Get 300 FBI agents and police to surround the place, shut off water and power, stop them from bringing in supplies. They will capitulate.

Or engage in cannibalism.

In many ways, I like this approach. Wait 'em out.

My evil side says tell them we don't negotiate with terrorists, cut off water and power, and shoot 'em when they start to come out all thin and thirsty... but like I said, that's my evil side.

Nothing goes in. Whenever they want, they can put down their guns and come out to surrender. If they come out shooting, then shoot back. The notion that these sorts of gun-toting yahoos could actually take on the US government in an armed confrontation is ludicrous.

No, obviously not, or Obama would have to actually grow a nut sack and send in the National Guard.

Strictly speaking, the governor of Oregon needs to send in the Oregon National Guard. Or at least give permission to loan 'em to the Feds. The National Guard within US borders are under the command of the state governors, not the PotUS.

[Sea Skimmer]

The law actually says its supposed to be the state legislature which calls for federal help in the event of insurrection, the governor only doing so if the legislature is unable to convene do so. If the president asserts that this process is no longer able to take place though, he can just order federal troops to take action. But that would require the state government be actively overthrown.

The national guard is always subject to federalization at the whim of the president. The governor has no saw what so ever on this, and boy have they bitched and moaned about that in the past to no effect. The guard is only in the control of the governor so much and so long as the federal government doesn't want such control. Once a state calls for federal help no distinction exists between regular federal troops and the national guard.

State funded state defense forces, which only exist on a serious scale in Texas, can only be mobilized by the president in time of war.

[Zaune]

And I'm sure we can all imagine how it will play in the yellow press, and among the Scorched Earth Republicans, if President Obama is the one to make the first move on deploying the National Guard.

[Sea Skimmer]

If Obama tried to deploy the national guard without even trying police based options he would deserve to be impeached and arrested. Its not like it wouldn't be possible to muster up five thousand actual federal police with armored vehicles and aircraft on short notice. Or fifty thousand for that matter, they more then exist. Nobody who reports to DHS is accountable to the Posse Comitatus Act, which includes armed helicopters owned by the freaking coast guard.

Let me know if these guys start digging anti tank ditches and bring in dump truck loads of .50cal ammo, or someone is actually freaking hurt, until and unless that kind of activity takes place talk about the national guard is just a hysterical overreaction by morons.

[Joun_Lord]

I don't understand this. How the fuck was nobody even arrested last year? I can understand the feds not wanting to massacre a bunch of civilians on the desert with Stryker or something, but the fact that they weren't all arrested after they dispersed is all kinds of fucked. The nearly non-existent Federal response to this is even worse.

If this was Canada, they'd be paid a visit from a LAV at minimum, even assuming outright martial law wasn't declared.

From what I understand there was still militia morons still camped out at El Rancho Bundy well after the incident and possibly still there now.

Also by law I think the Sovereign Citizen wannabe cunts didn't actually do anything illegal. Having weapons at a protest is not illegal, making douchey statements is not illegal, pointing guns in the general direction of law enforcement is not illegal, protecting a massive shitbag who most certainly did quite a bit of illegal shit is not illegal, and because they were invited there their presence was not illegal.

So its a combination of the douchetards not doing anything overtly illegal and the actual criminal who needed arrested not being arrested to avoid bloodshed. Which I guess is all understandable even if it sucks so massive Unicron and Death Star sized balls.

Now the situation with the Hammonds but not actually with the Hammonds but I guess inspired by them despite the Hammond's wanting nothing to do with it but won't stop the media from linking them together, that seems all kinds of illegal. Not the having guns or making vaguely threatening statements but occupying the wildlife refuge HQ. The 1st two things are covered by the Constitution, the latter not to my knowledge.

[Raj Ahten]

I have zero sympathy for the ranchers convicted of arson and even less for the militants who seized the refuge headquarters. Why do the ranchers get no sympathy? They were not burning to control invasive plants, at least according to the feds. They were burning to be assholes and conceal a hunting law violation. That's according to their own relatives who testified against them. The second fire that they were convicted of starting was them starting their own backburn with no coordination with firefighters which is idiotic to say the least. Fuck em that they got screwed by minimum sentences laws. If it was a minority man convicted of a drug offense these same assholes would call it justice. Its not like this conviction will ruin their lives anyway. They have their massively federally subsidized ranches to go back to once they are free. Fuckers who get as much federal aid as these people do complaining about being oppressed make me want to puke.

Here is the DOJ news release about the arson convictions.

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.”

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Frank R Papagni, Jr., AnneMarie Sgarlata and Kelly Zusman handled the prosecution of this case.

[the atom]

I don't understand this. How the fuck was nobody even arrested last year? I can understand the feds not wanting to massacre a bunch of civilians on the desert with Stryker or something, but the fact that they weren't all arrested after they dispersed is all kinds of fucked. The nearly non-existent Federal response to this is even worse.

If this was Canada, they'd be paid a visit from a LAV at minimum, even assuming outright martial law wasn't declared.

From what I understand there was still militia morons still camped out at El Rancho Bundy well after the incident and possibly still there now.

Also by law I think the Sovereign Citizen wannabe cunts didn't actually do anything illegal. Having weapons at a protest is not illegal, making douchey statements is not illegal, pointing guns in the general direction of law enforcement is not illegal, protecting a massive shitbag who most certainly did quite a bit of illegal shit is not illegal, and because they were invited there their presence was not illegal.

So its a combination of the douchetards not doing anything overtly illegal and the actual criminal who needed arrested not being arrested to avoid bloodshed. Which I guess is all understandable even if it sucks so massive Unicron and Death Star sized balls.

Now the situation with the Hammonds but not actually with the Hammonds but I guess inspired by them despite the Hammond's wanting nothing to do with it but won't stop the media from linking them together, that seems all kinds of illegal. Not the having guns or making vaguely threatening statements but occupying the wildlife refuge HQ. The 1st two things are covered by the Constitution, the latter not to my knowledge.

I....what? Are you fucking serious?

[Gaidin]

I....what? Are you fucking serious?

The Feds that are handling the Bundy ranch have one target. Bundy. One question. Are you actually asking them to either A) handle it like the NYPD street cops or B) turn it into a WACO and not learn from past mistakes?

[the atom]

I....what? Are you fucking serious?

The Feds that are handling the Bundy ranch have one target. Bundy. One question. Are you actually asking them to either A) handle it like the NYPD street cops or B) turn it into a WACO and not learn from past mistakes?

I'm asking them to nut up and treat insurrectionists seriously instead of hanging around letting them do whatever they want. Our government put the kibosh on that shit in 1970 and 1990 in Quebec and at Oka without either incident turning into a bloodbath, or letting the perpetrators walk away, so I don't think it's that unreasonable to expect the US to do the same.