Is there where the next Revolution starts?

2»

Replies

  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,230 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Just a little more information.

    "In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges (dropping arson charges), they accused them of being “Terrorist” under the Federal Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death . . . This is where the federal arson charges are found these days. Saying that they were charged as terrorists is ignorant and dishonest.

    On January 4, 2013, Dwight and Steven reported to prison. They fulfilled their sentences, (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months). Dwight was released in March 2013 and Steven, January 2014 . . . Correct.

    In October 2015, the 9th District Court “resentenced” Dwight and Steven, requiring them to return to prison for several more years. Steven (46) has a wife and 3 children. Dwight (74) will leave Susan (74) to be alone after 55 years of marriage. If he survives, he will be 79 when he is released. Correct.

    During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal. If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM Emphasis added The bolded part is wrong. First right of refusal does not mean that they have to sell it to them, it means that they have to offer it to them first and BLM has the right to take the offer or decline-- If I wanted to buy it for a zillion dollars and BLM refused to match my offer, I would be the buyer.


    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/
    http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/12/ranchers_fight_with_feds_spark.html
  • shootbrownelkshootbrownelk Senior Member Posts: 2,025 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »

    That was an interesting read, to say the least. It seems the Hammonds aren't the squeaky clean , close knit, family values group that they pretend to be. Not surprised. Thanks for the link Jerm.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,737 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »

    The article I posted was the Hammonds account of the events. As I mentioned earlier, there is two sides to every story.

    I simply tend to side against the Feds version.

    Oh, and being FORCED to give the BLM right of refusal is the issue. You don't have a zillion dollars. The BLM on the other hand....
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • wizard78wizard78 Senior Member Posts: 1,004 Senior Member
    They weren't convicted of poaching. Frankly doesn't matter why they started the fires, they intentionally burned land that wasn't theirs. That's Arson. That's a crime. If the land they burned was private property and not land owned by the American people I wonder if you'd feel the same way?

    From what I heard on Fox news yesterday, the Hammonds started the fire on their land as a controlled burn but it spread to the adjacent BLM land. Additionally, it is suspected that by many of the people now involved, that by putting the two in prison, the family will be forced to sell the land or possibly forfeit, to the BLM because they won't be able to keep up with taxes etc.

    “When guns are outlawed, only patriots will have guns.”
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,230 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    The article I posted was the Hammonds account of the events. As I mentioned earlier, there is two sides to every story.

    I simply tend to side against the Feds version.
    In all honesty, I am trying to understand what really happened and not take anyone's version of events. I have little sympathy for the Feds or multimillionaire ranchers that got rich at the expense of exploiting public assets.

    Some thoughts...

    I think 5 years in prison for their crimes is unfair.
    I think that mandatory minimum sentencing is unjust.
    I question the vast holdings of land by the government and wonder if it would be better if more were privatized.
    The corporate welfare that the BLM doles out makes miners, ranchers, and loggers dependent on their handouts (like it always happens when welfare is doled out) and needs to be completely reworked. They need to be better stewards of the public's assets. They also do not need to go creating a nobility class where the same public land gets exclusive grazing rights from the same families for generations. How about getting fair market value for a change?
    Federal bureaucracy is a nightmare.
    I am not seeing where in the Constitution these people are supposedly defending.
  • earlyearly Senior Member Posts: 4,950 Senior Member
    I think these people protesting have conveluded greivenves and objectives.

    I also think that local LE should evacuate the area and give these folks geographic distance and that the Feds should continue doing likewise. This thing can de-escilate to peaceful conclusion if handled properly and it should.
    My thoughts are generally clear. My typing, not so much.
  • shootbrownelkshootbrownelk Senior Member Posts: 2,025 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    In all honesty, I am trying to understand what really happened and not take anyone's version of events. I have little sympathy for the Feds or multimillionaire ranchers that got rich at the expense of exploiting public assets.

    Some thoughts...

    I think 5 years in prison for their crimes is unfair.
    I think that mandatory minimum sentencing is unjust.
    I question the vast holdings of land by the government and wonder if it would be better if more were privatized.
    The corporate welfare that the BLM doles out makes miners, ranchers, and loggers dependent on their handouts (like it always happens when welfare is doled out) and needs to be completely reworked. They need to be better stewards of the public's assets. They also do not need to go creating a nobility class where the same public land gets exclusive grazing rights from the same families for generations. How about getting fair market value for a change?
    Federal bureaucracy is a nightmare.
    I am not seeing where in the Constitution these people are supposedly defending.

    I agree with everything you listed, except the privatization of BLM/NF lands. The ranchers out here, at least the ones that I'm familiar with, are horrible stewards of public lands. If the States get control they will sell it off to the highest bidder...unless they themselves or some one they know would want it. The states couldn't even afford to fight wildfires.
  • toymachinetoymachine Senior Member Posts: 761 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    That is not the hill I am going to die on.]

    I agree. I just have to give up any reasonable expectation of Constitutional Rights, keep my head down, my nose clean, and keep bribing the tax man to keep me out of jail. Regardless of what the Hammonds did to get their sentence, they served their sentence, and the Fifth Amendment protects them from extension of that sentence barring further transgressions. By extending their sentence without parole violations or other offenses, the judge rendered the Fifth Amendment null and void, and by extension, the Constitution invalid. That irritates me, but the Second Amendment has been toothless for a while, so I guess we should get used to it.

    edit: I see the Texas Governor is proposing several new amendments, some of which seem like good ideas and renew my hope in the government. However, I'm not sure how he's planing to make the feds obey new amendments, when they already ignore the 2nd, 4th, and 5th, among others.
    "Is 'milk bottle' literally a racist term?"
    "It is now." - Jack Fraggs
  • Murphy's LawMurphy's Law Member Posts: 313 Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Just a little more information.

    "In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges (dropping arson charges), they accused them of being “Terrorist” under the Federal Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death . . .

    On January 4, 2013, Dwight and Steven reported to prison. They fulfilled their sentences, (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months). Dwight was released in March 2013 and Steven, January 2014 . . .

    In October 2015, the 9th District Court “resentenced” Dwight and Steven, requiring them to return to prison for several more years. Steven (46) has a wife and 3 children. Dwight (74) will leave Susan (74) to be alone after 55 years of marriage. If he survives, he will be 79 when he is released.

    During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal. If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM Emphasis added


    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

    Another thought that scares me, regardless of their guilt or innocence, is the thought that the Feds can have free reign over previous sentencing. Who's to say some pro 2A judge gives an, otherwise law abiding citizen, a lenient sentence for a bogus gun charge, and then the Feds, backing up an anti gun prez, steps in and gives the max. There's a lot more here than meets the eye IMO.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.