The stand-off in Oregon between the Federal government and Ammon Bundy and his fellow ranchers does not seem to be winding down. Bundy and his loosely connected organization came to Burns, Oregon about two weeks ago in support of Steven and Dwight Hammond, local ranchers who were accused of arson some years ago. The charges were filed because the Hammonds cleared some of their ranch by burning the underbrush and overgrowth, but the fire spread to surrounding Federal land. The Hammonds were able to extinguish the blaze without help, and in fact, both the Hammonds ranch and the Federal land are said to be more productive and healthier from the clearing, but the government seems intent on making a show of who is in charge.
The charge of arson, which in and of itself seems like a huge miscarriage of justice, in that it carries a mandatory sentence of 5 years in prison. A judge who tried the case thought so too and said that it would be improper and unfair to send them to prison for 5 years each, so he sentenced the Hammonds to less than a year in jail, which they completed some time ago. However, a judge or government agency seeking to show ranchers everywhere just who is in charge has demanded that the Hammonds serve the full five years, and the father and son left for prison last week.
Ammon Bundy claims new documents expose government abuse, page 2:
Josh Gambin , corby’s post mentions that the unclaimed land is property of the state. Therefore article 4 section 3 would not apply since the land doesn’t belong to the United States.
Multi million dollar corporations are the ones getting those farm subsidies.
These lands will be used in order to pay off the national debt to the central bank in the defalt of american debt perpetrated by the federal reserve act of 1913 on the bailout of 2008.
Criminals people.. They’re Constitutionalist.
The bird refuge isn’t on an Indian reservation, its on federal land. It’s all part of our “commons”, and serves multiple purposes including preservation.
Jackasses with guns go home
I know for sure these guys are gay. Some people say that they are child molesters as well
Ok mr peck. Explain to everyone Klemperer v New Mexico
Kleppe not Klemperer
As a constitutional matter, this is gobbledygook. The Constitution provides that “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.” Moreover, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Kleppe v. New Mexico, that this constitutional provision provides that “the power over the public land thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations.” The federal government may own land, it may enact regulations governing that land, and it may do with its own land as it chooses, regardless of whether that land is within the borders of a state.