Moron Wildlife Occupied Arrested

[philoshop]

Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2.

 

2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

 

Once the land is established as a State within the Union, it is no longer considered a "...Territory or other Property belonging to the United States..."

'The United States' does not own the individual States.

 

[pt0217]

It pertains to a 10 mile square to be designated as the seat of the Federal government and lands "PURCHASED from the states.

AGAIN, somebody cite LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION where it states that all lands held by the federal government must be ceded to the state upon statehood.

I realize that. The limits are in the word "needful". Examples of "needful" are stated.

What difference does it make if it says anywhere the land must be ceded to the states, if the federal government is owning land that isn't "needful" for it to to do its job according to the constitution. This isn't that complicated.

Read what you posted. It's in black and white.

The constitution gives limited powers to the federal government, the right to control those limited powers and the right to own the land to perform those limited powers.

I could write it in crayon if that would help.

[wildcat junkie]

I realize that. The limits are in the word "needful". Examples of "needful" are stated.

What difference does it make if it says anywhere the land must be ceded to the states, if the federal government is owning land that isn't "needful" for it to to do its job according to the constitution. This isn't that complicated.

Read what you posted. It's in black and white.

The constitution gives limited powers to the federal government, the right to control those limited powers and the right to own the land to perform those limited powers.

I could write it in crayon if that would help.

 

That article pertains to he seat of the U S government & land "purchased" from the states. It's right there in black & white.

[pt0217]

That article pertains to he seat of the U S government & land "purchased" from the states. It's right there in black & white.

I'm confused. Are we debating whether or not the land grab by the federal Gov that the Bundies are protesting is unconstitutional or something else?

[wildcat junkie]

I'm confused. Are we debating whether or not the land grab by the federal Gov that the Bundies are protesting is unconstitutional or something else?

 

The Bundy incident had to do with deadbeat Bundy refusing to pay grazing fees like everyone else.

 

[pt0217]

Grazing fees? To who?

[philoshop]

The Bundy incident had to do with deadbeat Bundy refusing to pay grazing fees like everyone else.

 

 

Cliven Bundy offered several times to pay the Federal government the money he owed them. Every time he did so the BLM would raise the financial bar, essentially reneging on their contract. His only recourse was to hire attorneys and present his case to the BLM's own court of dispute, or whatever they call it, which would of course uphold the BLM's position.

He got tired of financially supporting both sides in the Federal government's case against him, out-of-pocket on one side and his taxes on the other. The BLM moved in to seize the property and met with resistance. It's not about 'rancher welfare'.

 

The Hammonds in Oregon were sentenced for an "act of domestic terrorism". They set fire to scrub brush in an effort to create a fire-break and keep wildfires off their ranch. Their fire got a little out of control and burned 140 acres, some of which was considered Federal land. They were sentenced to 5 years in prison.

In the same time period, the BLM intentionally burned several thousand acres of private property to create the same kinds of fire-breaks. Nobody from the Federal government is being held responsible for that.

 

If this was happening in the Adirondacks or the Finger Lakes, I suspect some of the views would be different.

[Uptown Redneck]

And those who occupied the federal wildlife refuge should also be charged as "domestic terrorists" being there activities involved "acts dangerous to human life"  that "violated the criminal laws of the U.S. or any state" which "intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation ". all of these actions define the meaning of "domestic terrorism". These actions are more "terroristic" then the Hammonds setting wild-fires to combat a fire threat.  

 

 

[bubba]

Rolling my eyes

[pt0217]

Domestic terrorism? How about trespassing?

[EspressoBuzz]

The Hammonds in Oregon were sentenced for an "act of domestic terrorism". They set fire to scrub brush in an effort to create a fire-break and keep wildfires off their ranch. Their fire got a little out of control and burned 140 acres, some of which was considered Federal land. They were sentenced to 5 years in prison.

 

 

 

No, the Hammonds were sentenced for ARSON which under law passed after the McVey bombing carries a mandatory 5 year sentence if it involves any federal property. The fire break fire they set directly endangered firefighters in the area AND they were told not to set that fire and did so anyway. Another fire they set to cover up the slaughter of a herd of deer. They have also had other minor run ins with the local BLM officials.

 

FACTS! It's what's for dinner!

 

Go ahead fact check me!

[philoshop]

https://wlj.net/print-article-11862-print.html

 

This was written 5 months before the Malheur Refuge incident. I have no information regarding the "slaughtering of a herd of deer".

The Federal prosecutor charged them with an act of domestic terrorism because that was the most serious crime they could come up with.

The Federal government wanted them off that land, and it looks like they'll achieve that goal. They're using the same tactics all over the country.

[EspressoBuzz]

Western Livestock Journal isn't the Washington Post, CNN, The NY Times or Fox News and perhaps a bit partial.

 

"Three years ago, after a two-week trial in Pendleton, Oregon, a jury found 70-year old Dwight and his son, 43-year old Steven Hammond, guilty of committing arson on public lands in 2001. Steven Hammond was also found guilty of committing a second arson in 2006.

They were found not guilty of other arson charges, and while the jury was deliberating on the remaining charges, the Hammonds negotiated for the dismissal of those charges and a promise from the U.S. Attorney to recommend the minimum sentence mandated by law. The Hammonds assured the trial judge that they knew the law required they serve no less than five years in prison."

As I said Arson.

Cause Fact Lives Matter.

http://kval.com/news/local/background-us-attorney-issued-press-releases-on-hammond-case-in-october-december

http://katu.com/news/local/criminal-history-of-the-hammond-familys-arson-conviction

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2660399/Statement-USattorney.pdf

[philoshop]

They were originally charged with arson. The Federal prosecutor later charged them with domestic terrorism and sent them back to jail.

[ants]

No, the Hammonds were sentenced for ARSON which under law passed after the McVey bombing carries a mandatory 5 year sentence if it involves any federal property. The fire break fire they set directly endangered firefighters in the area AND they were told not to set that fire and did so anyway. Another fire they set to cover up the slaughter of a herd of deer. They have also had other minor run ins with the local BLM officials.

 

FACTS! It's what's for dinner!

 

Go ahead fact check me!

And if the Hammonds were of any other" group", and  served the sentence, that was handed down by a judge, released and later told that they had to return to jail to serve more time..you would be 100% good with that….LOL!! Pry off those "THATS RACIST!!!" glasses that you wear every day and use that hair dyed head of yours for once...

[EspressoBuzz]

They were originally charged with arson. The Federal prosecutor later charged them with domestic terrorism and sent them back to jail.

Again incorrect, FACTS. They were sentenced for less than the 5 years required by the law and the federal prosecutor then filed a case against the court saying they did not uphold the law and won. The LAW is not a domestic terrorism law, it was added to a bill, like so many other changes to laws, in a Domestic Terrorism bill passed after the McVey bombing. The 5 year mandatory sentence is required in all arson convictions involving federal land regardless of if domestic terrorism was involved.

 

Here is the law, please check it, it doesn't say you have to be a terrorist you just have to be an arson.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ132/html/PLAW-104publ132.htm

 

SEC. 708. ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR USE OF EXPLOSIVES OR ARSON CRIMES.

(a) In General.--Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is

amended--

(1) in subsection (e), by striking ``five'' and inserting

``10'';

(2) by amending subsection (f) to read as follows:

``(f)(1) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to

damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building,

vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or

possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or

agency thereof, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not

more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.

``(2) Whoever engages in conduct prohibited by this subsection, and

as a result of such conduct, directly or proximately causes personal

injury or creates a substantial risk of injury to any person, including

any public safety officer performing duties, shall be imprisoned for not

less than 7 years and not more than 40 years, fined under this title, or

both.

``(3) Whoever engages in conduct prohibited by this subsection, and

as a result of such conduct directly or proximately causes the death of

any person, including any public safety officer performing duties, shall

be subject to the death penalty, or imprisoned for not less than 20

years or for life, fined under this title, or both.'';

(3) in subsection (h)--

(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``5 years but

not more than 15 years'' and inserting ``10 years''; and

( in the second sentence, by striking ``10 years

but not more than 25 years'' and inserting ``20 years'';

and

(4) in subsection (i)--

(A) by striking ``not more than 20 years, fined the

greater of the fine under this title or the cost of

repairing or replacing any property that is damaged or

destroyed,'' and inserting ``not less than 5 years and

not more than 20 years, fined under this title''; and

( by striking ``not more than 40 years, fined the

greater of a fine under this title or the cost of

repairing or replacing any property that is damaged or

destroyed,'' and inserting ``not less than 7 years and

not more than 40 years, fined under this title''.

( Conforming Amendment.--Section 81 of title 18, United States

Code, is amended by striking ``fined under this title or

[[Page 110 STAT. 1297]]

imprisoned not more than five years, or both'' and inserting

``imprisoned for not more than 25 years, fined the greater of the fine

under this title or the cost of repairing or replacing any property that

is damaged or destroyed, or both''.

© Statute of Limitation for Arson Offenses.--

(1) In general.--Chapter 213 of title 18, United States

Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

 

Facts! Knowing is half the battle!

[wildcat junkie]

They were originally charged with arson. The Federal prosecutor later charged them with domestic terrorism and sent them back to jail.

 

 

They were found guilty of arson of federal property which carries a MINIMUM sentence of 5 years. The1st judge disregarded the minimum sentence, the feds appealed & won. The Hammonds were sent back to serve out the remainder of the 5 year minimum sentence..  Domestic terrorism carries a much longer jail sentence than 5 years.

[Curmudgeon]

Now the father - Cliven - is in custody. Finally. Backing down in 2014 just encouraged more of this stuff.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Curmudgeon

[Uptown Redneck]

The father of two men who were among the occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and are now in jail, was himself arrested in Portland, Ore., Wednesday night.

Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher prominent in protests to end federal control of western lands, is being held in the Multnomah County Detention Center. His sons Ammon and Ryan were arrested Jan. 27 and are there as well.

 

At last, the entire as#hole family together where they belong.

[pt0217]

What did he do wrong?

[Uptown Redneck]

What did he do wrong?

Just being responsible for creating his idiot sons is reason enough to be jailed. Maybe the authorities are practicing Trump's thinking of going after the parents and relatives of terrorists.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Uptown Redneck

[pt0217]

Maybe the FBI are throwing all of you left wing nut jobs a bone in front of them throwing Hillary in jail

[ants]

Just being responsible for creating his idiot sons is reason enough to be jailed. Maybe the authorities are practicing Trump's thinking of going after the parents and relatives of terrorists.

Do you feel the same way about the parents of the drug dealers who live on your street??  LOL!!

[woodchuck]

Uptown bone smuggler with another gem of a comment

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

[EspressoBuzz]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/11/nevada-rancher-cliven-bundy-arrested-by-fbi-in-portland.html

 

Apparently the law has a long arm and longer memory. He was still wanted by the feds for his refusal to pay ONE MILLION DOLLARS (Pinky finger touching corner of mouth ala Dr Evil) in grazing fees and trespassing fines. They will probably add the charges of interfering with with federal agents when he called (repeatedly) for the wildlife refuge occupying militia to not give up after his son asked then to surrender.