Post #46 = “old school definition” Out west, here, BLM has only ever meant one thing.
I like the idea of cutting off power, water, heat, etc. and letting them decide to back to their warm homes.
I would really not want any workers harmed by trigger happy “protesters,” who are anarchists really.
@cardinal Fang it is my perhaps mistaken impression that the Hammonds have been prosecuted for “arson” for setting backfires, amongst other things, and that the minimum sentences that they are now being required to serve are associated with statutes designed to prosecute terrorists. These men have already been sentenced and served their time. Someone decided to go back and re-prosecute them to get longer sentences. This sounds like class A BS to me.
They have no right to permanently, or “for years” as they brag, take over a federal building and I really doubt they will be allowed to do so.
Perhaps they will be treated with some level of kid gloves, permitted to “occupy” for a short period of time before federal authority asserts itself on behalf of the public interest, which absolutely should happen. I would not like to see any federal officers risk they lives clearing out these numbskulls, though. Send in the drones.
Ammon Bundy said God told him to go to Oregon. And one of the leaders of the group posted his farewell video to his family as he expects to die.
Do they not understand they’re a bunch of losers who took over an empty bird sanctuary building?
Arson on federal lands has minimum sentencing which was a response to crimes committed by “eco-terrorists”. It wasn’t re-prosecuted, the sentence was appealed because the presiding judge did not follow minimum sentencing rules.
It looks pretty cut and dried to me.
@Consolation – the re-sentencing occurred because the judge ignored a 1996 statute that created a 5 year mandatory minimum for arson on federal land.
Because of this, the government appealed and won, The Hammonds appealed to the Supreme Court and their petition was turned down.
This is incorrect. The ranchers shot a herd of deer on federal land, then set a fire to cover up their poaching. There were witnesses, who testified in the trial.
But we probably shouldn’t be arguing about their sentence. The real issue is the terrorists who took over the visitor’s center at the wildlife refuge. The arsonists repudiate the terrorists.
The false sentencing conspiracy theories feed the sense of indignation and government overreach. Otherwise reasonable people hear those complaints and think there might be something to them. Without that borrowed legitimacy these guys are rebels without a cause in the eyes of the general public. However tenuous, that fabricated outrage makes the public a bit less supporting of just going in and cleaning them out straight away.
It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. It would be easy to look heavy handed staking out a bird sanctuary. They (the separatists) may be looking to escalate this into some kind of provocative end game.
My outrage at people being required to serve inflated sentences based on statutes aimed at other types of crimes is not “manufactured.” As far as I am concerned, minimum sentencing rules that take the discretion away from judges are bad policy. I also think that statutes that create different classes of crimes depending on perceived motivation are usually bad policy. I strongly disagree with the notion of “hate crimes.” Assault is assault, murder is murder.
I think that those who chose to appeal the sentences of the Hammonds after they had served their time were vindictive jerks, especially given that they knew full well that the Hammonds were not guilty of “ecoterrorism.”
There is no difference between this kind of crap and prosecutors attempting to convict people of “adverse possession” for being in the mere presence of pot, knowing full well that the law was enacted to go after heroin mules travelling the I-95 corridor.
However, the apparent injustice visited upon the Hammonds is separate from the actions of an armed “militia” taking over a federal building. If they were staging an Occupy-style peaceful protest they would have my sympathy. As it is, they do not.
Okay, socalled “ecoterrorists” are also not guilty of terrorism. That’s a bogus term for direct action against property. It was coined to label monkeywrenching as terrorism, by the kind of people that the Hammonds would be on the same side with. That it is being used against idiots like them who poached and try to cover it up is, from my point of view, divine justice.
It seems like you’re arguing against yourself. You say that the arsonists should not get a heavy sentence because the fires they set on federal land were backfires. But the crime here is setting fires on federal land. You appear to be arguing that the perceived motivation SHOULD be taken into account in this instance.
You might want to get your facts straight before you call people “vindictive jerks.”
The government appealed the sentence at once, as soon as it was issued. The Hammonds took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, after the Ninth Circuit ruled against them. It takes a long time for a case to get all the way to the Supreme Court. The Hammonds knew all along that if they lost their case they’d have to go back to prison.
You think 3 months is an adequate sentence for arson of that magnitude that endangers the lives of firefighters?
I think the federal government should build a fence around the building and rename it Oregon Federal prison.
Build a wall…
Simple - it is not illegal to be armed. What is illegal is if the arms are illegally used against someone. It is also not illegal to protest and to petition government. Therefore, both activities are legal.
More importantly, government holds no special position reference the Constitution, as the government is subordinate to it. The Bill of Rights supersedes the federal government, and thus it is only sedition if the act subverts government. This act does not subvert government because people have the right to petition government, and they also have the right to bear arms as well.
Specifically, the above is not sedition, as sedition would involve activities, which are contrary to the law. This is a populous disagreement with government, and nothing being done is contrary to the law and the Constitution (The Supreme Law).
As for the BLM analogy, there is nothing stopping BLM’ protestors from open carrying in the applicable states or in carrying rifles - they just choose not to. Just because someone chooses not to use a right that they have does not mean that someone who does afford themselves that right is doing something illegal or treasonous.
Last time I saw, BLM protestors were not forced out of government, i.e., public, areas either. Private places, yes, but in government-controlled areas, I do not recall them being confronted in a forceable way at all by authorities - this is why BLM can shut down highways and bridges. A public highway, street, or bridge is no different than a public building or public land; all are public. If BLM can shut down a public highway, these protestors can shut down public land or a public building; legally, there is no difference.
Build another wall…
Ah… our own personal gun proponent has arrived on this thread. Let the gun-loving posts begin.