• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Armed Militia Take over Federal Reserve

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
Do civilian/unarmed folks have to pledge allegiance to their militia in order to visit the public lands that they are occupying?
 
Last edited:

drsysadmin

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2014
Messages
126
Location
WNC
Realize I ask these questions NOT in opposition, but out of a desire to understand.

This action was taken out of a claim that 2 people (of another family) have been treated unfairly by being required to return to federal custody and imprisonment. However, the 2 people in question, as well as their family, have stated that the "occupiers" do not speak for the family or the convicted persons. While I do not agree with many of the BLM actions and policies or its long term agenda, does not only the lack of support - but outright opposition - by the supposedly aggrieved party not undercut the standing and validity of this action?
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
Well that issue was created by feds was it not?

I guess if you can spin the idea that enforcing laws and court rulings is forcing the militants to post armed guards and threaten violence, no valid reasons for their actions are necessary to you. Why not just go ahead and blame Pres. Obama for the actions of the uninvited, out of town militants that are restricting access to these public lands? You know you want to. Your spokesman Alex Jones has already claimed that it is a ploy to get our guns.
https://youtu.be/DGe9BKuE_bM
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,463
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
The issue is that this militia has decided who can and can't have access to these public lands. If you don't know the answer, just say so. Perhaps someone else knows.
Public lands? When a small body of Government claims that a larger body is wrong, then what, the small group is a terrorist group when they are not destroying things. However when an "unarmed" group trashes the cities they live in and rob the storea, that is okay?

What/Who is the government? Of the people, by the people, and for the people is the founding of it. Now it is of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations. Those armed citizens who are taking a stand seem to simply be sick of illegal government is all.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
Government having more property than for proper and immediate need is wrong. The government is not our landlord, they are public servants and we the public masters.
So wildlife preserves, National Parks, conservation areas, etc. should all be thrown open to cattlemen (who don't want to pay for state grazing fees aka Bundy), oil companies, logging companies and those other shining examples of land conservation to exploit as they will? If not for the constraints imposed by the feds, they would have used all that PUBLIC land up already.
 

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
Not that simple ?

So wildlife preserves, National Parks, conservation areas, etc. should all be thrown open to cattlemen (who don't want to pay for state grazing fees aka Bundy), oil companies, logging companies and those other shining examples of land conservation to exploit as they will? If not for the constraints imposed by the feds, they would have used all that PUBLIC land up already.

Notwithstanding the land being public this is not as simple as the media or the government portrays.

There has been a build up of sorts over a long period of time, ranchers in the area have been trying to adjust.

If the government found and endangered creature in your backyard and decided to cordon off an area to protect said creature how would you take it? Now lets say over the course of several years the same government expanded the protected area and tightened your ability to use the other resources you would likely get your dander up a bit.

I also acknowledge my example is too simplified and does not pertain to public land yet the premise is the same.

Over time, the government, in small increments have forced western ranchers to comply or fold up.

I am not advocating the acts of this militia yet they do make some salient points.


~Whitney
 

decklin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
758
Location
Pacific, WA
So wildlife preserves, National Parks, conservation areas, etc. should all be thrown open to cattlemen (who don't want to pay for state grazing fees aka Bundy), oil companies, logging companies and those other shining examples of land conservation to exploit as they will? If not for the constraints imposed by the feds, they would have used all that PUBLIC land up already.

Learn more about the Bundy situation. You've got your facts twisted. The BLM wasn't doing their job. The Bundy's tried to pay the Sheriff. He wouldn't take the money.
Try looking at independent news organizations. Stop listening to the talking heads.
You exist in the Information Age. Take advantage of it.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Do civilian/unarmed folks have to pledge allegiance to their militia in order to visit the public lands that they are occupying?


The issue is that this militia has decided who can and can't have access to these public lands.

Have they?

I wasn't aware that the group describing itself as "not a militia" has actually restricted anyone's access to the land. Nor have they engaged in any violence nor threatened any violence except in self-defense to repel violence against themselves.

The feds and local law enforcement are claiming the Bundy-led group could be a danger to others and is "encouraging" people to stay away.

Do you have information to the contrary? And if so, what is your source?



To be clear, I oppose the armed seizure of federal assets. I think this is the wrong way to go about things. An unarmed, peaceful sit-in could have maybe drawn attention to the real issue. Instead, these guys are giving the media and Obama their focus on guns in the hands of crazies at the very moment the gun grabbers are making renewed assaults on our RKBA.

I grew up in South-Western Utah. Most of the longtime locals from South-Western Utah and South-Eastern Nevada are very sympathetic to the causes which the Bundys claim motivate them. Federal over-reach on land management issues is a long-standing and very sore spot to those whose families settled this part of the country and who continue to work very hard to eek out a living in a very inhospitable climate. While I didn't know the Bundy family, I know plenty of folks who do know the Bundys. And those who know them, know them as just a bit crazy...not the family you want to see your kid marrying into. I'm not suggesting the Bundys are acting as agent provocateurs. But whether they are or are just being foolish in how they approach this, the effect is the same.

Regardless of my views of the personalities involved or even their tactics, we here ought to deal with facts rather than emotional hyperbole or conjecture whenever possible.

So please either provide citations that the Bundy group has denied public access to the lands, or else retract your assertion (posed as a question) that they have.

Charles
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
Learn more about the Bundy situation. You've got your facts twisted. The BLM wasn't doing their job. The Bundy's tried to pay the Sheriff. He wouldn't take the money.
Try looking at independent news organizations. Stop listening to the talking heads.
You exist in the Information Age. Take advantage of it.

So the sheriff is at fault? The Bundys were going to pay the sheriff their federal grazing fees? The Bundys weren't grazing their cattle on federal land? Armed militants weren't threatening federal and local law enforcement? What part did I miss by not looking at wnd or breitbart?
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
So wildlife preserves, National Parks, conservation areas, etc. should all be thrown open to cattlemen (who don't want to pay for state grazing fees aka Bundy), oil companies, logging companies and those other shining examples of land conservation to exploit as they will? If not for the constraints imposed by the feds, they would have used all that PUBLIC land up already.

So the sheriff is at fault? The Bundys were going to pay the sheriff their federal grazing fees? The Bundys weren't grazing their cattle on federal land? Armed militants weren't threatening federal and local law enforcement? What part did I miss by not looking at wnd or breitbart?



Where do you live, beebobby? Thus far you are demonstrating a gross lack of knowledge regarding the issues of "public lands" in the Western US or how promises from the feds have been broken, lifestyles of those who settled this land are being systematically destroyed, and important natural resources are being locked up from public use making us more dependent on foreign oil and other essential minerals.

67.9% of the total area of my State of Utah is controlled by the federal government. Another 7.3% by State government. 75% of my State is in government hands.

Go east of the Colorado / Kansas State line and you can't find a State with more than 14% federal ownership, with the vast majority having no more than 10%. Have New York State, Massachusetts, and West Virginia "used all that PUBLIC land up already"??? Or have private property owners generally been good stewards of the land?

Under the "equal footing" doctrine, Utah and other Western States ought to be treated as fully equal members of the Union. We cannot be equal when the federal government presumes to maintain perpetual ownership and control of the majority of the land mass of our States. This is land on which property taxes are not paid. (PILTs are not equal what would be charged private property owners, much less what the taxable value of the land would if responsibly developed.) Western States are treated as colonial areas. The last time a US President had fun with a pen, 1.8 MILLION acres was turned into a natural monument. That is a land area larger than all of Rhode Island or Delaware. This just happened to lock up one of the largest low-sulfur coal deposits in the entire world. There is not a State east of the Mississippi River that could fund their budgets a single year if they and their citizens lost control of over half of the land in their State.

I do not support armed seizure of federal assets. But don't think for one moment that the feds haven't been seizing massive amounts of land here in the West on top of the unimaginable amount of land they have never ceded to the States after we were admitted to the union.

Your posts on this topic are like those who compare the founding fathers of our nation to terrorists who are unhappy because they cannot wipe Israel off the face of the earth and eradicate the Jewish people. One doesn't have to agree with how the Bundys have handled everything to realize they have some valid complaints.

How many private ranchers in South-Eastern Nevada have been put out of business the last 50 years by arbitrary and capricious BLM policies? How many in Oregon? These are typically family operations, real people, living peaceful lives, until federal land policies and insane "environmental" regulations force them out of business, off their land, and out of their lifestyle. This despite federal promises that federal ownership of land was being continued beyond Statehood only so the feds could assure "multi-use" as different land use rights (lumber rights, mineral rights, grazing rights, water rights) were made available to different entities to maximize use of the resources. Only somewhere in the last 50 or so years, federal land policies have changed to minimize use. We watch as beetle infestations destroy entire forests and create conditions for massive wildfires due to federal land use that prevents proper timber management. We endure high energy costs and low polluting coal and even lower polluting natural gas reserves are kept locked up. Motorized access and ranching are shut out, leaving only the granola-head backpackers able to even visit the land, and much of that land too vast to even legally visit as one can't carry sufficient water to walk between the rare watering-hole.

You demonstrate absolute city slicker, liberal, tree-hugger bias. My ancestors were among the first white settlers to ever come to Utah. For 6 generations their posterity have lived here, doing our level best to pass on the goodness to our large number of children. We were practicing "sustainable" industry before anyone had a word for it. Yes, honest mistakes were made along the way and some corrections have been required. That is every bit as true of federal land managers as it is of private owners. (See the massive Yellowstone fires of 1988.) But there has never been any desire to rape or pillage the land. We intend to be here for another 100 generations.

Charles
 
Last edited:

drsysadmin

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2014
Messages
126
Location
WNC
One doesn't have to agree with how the Bundys have handled everything to realize they have some valid complaints.

Absolutely true. There are a LOT of issues with the BLM and many other governmental entities. But how can I even respect a "movement" that can't even settle on what its "cause" is? Initially it was the 2 men going back to jail (which I have issues with unless they were convicted of additional crimes - which has not occurred in a court of law). Now its supposedly about local control of land. What will it be next week?

The American Revolution against tyranny was not so capricious, I assure you.

The government shouldn't own land it doesn't need. This isn't the way to resolve that issue, at least not yet.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
I guess if you can spin the idea that enforcing laws and court rulings is forcing the militants to post armed guards and threaten violence, no valid reasons for their actions are necessary to you. Why not just go ahead and blame Pres. Obama for the actions of the uninvited, out of town militants that are restricting access to these public lands? You know you want to. Your spokesman Alex Jones has already claimed that it is a ploy to get our guns.
https://youtu.be/DGe9BKuE_bM

Quite amusing considering the latest "shutdown" were armed federal thugs blockaded the public from using "public" sites.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Absolutely true. There are a LOT of issues with the BLM and many other governmental entities. But how can I even respect a "movement" that can't even settle on what its "cause" is?

...

The government shouldn't own land it doesn't need. This isn't the way to resolve that issue, at least not yet.

I agree completely with you. Frankly, this incident is starting to look like the crazy redneck version of the inner city riots, but without the crimes against private property: Lots of simmering issues below the surface and something creates a flashpoint, an excuse to act out on that frustration. Most importantly, it becomes easy to focus on the poorly chosen tactics rather than on the issues.

In the case at hand we have the immediate issue of men being sent BACK to prison after having served their terms and being released. Whatever technical reasons the courts used, it smells a lot like double jeopardy to me. Most galling is that while the feds make a point to get additional time for these two ranchers, in the last couple of weeks we've had reports out of Washington about some 3000 inmates being released early in error over the last decade or so. While the authorities are going to track down the inmates, they are going to be given a "day for day good behavior credit for each day in the community" meaning that most will actually never serve another day for their crimes. Not to mention federal efforts to release 6000 federal inmates early because they now figure the original sentences were too harsh for non violent crimes. But these two, these two ranchers must be taught the harshest lesson possible. Victimize your fellow citizens and the feds can go easy. Challenge federal authority over land in any way and you can expect a good solid slap down.

Longer running is the under-lying issue of federal land policies and control.

But who even notices those when a bunch of loose cannons make the issue about their carrying guns and willingness to shoot federal employees?

Charles
 

decklin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
758
Location
Pacific, WA
So the sheriff is at fault? The Bundys were going to pay the sheriff their federal grazing fees? The Bundys weren't grazing their cattle on federal land? Armed militants weren't threatening federal and local law enforcement? What part did I miss by not looking at wnd or breitbart?

This should get you started.

http://www.google.com

Again, this is the Information Age. Take advantage of it. There are threads on this very forum with all the info and citations.
 

decklin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
758
Location
Pacific, WA
So the sheriff is at fault? The Bundys were going to pay the sheriff their federal grazing fees? The Bundys weren't grazing their cattle on federal land? Armed militants weren't threatening federal and local law enforcement? What part did I miss by not looking at wnd or breitbart?

If you hire someone for a service and they fail to do it are you still going to pay them?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
The Hammonds were convicted on terrorism charges for doing a unlawful burn "arson" to cover up their alleged poaching. They were sent back to prison because the feds appealed their initial sentencing to the 9th Circus and won. Only the POTUS can let them out of jail. The feds have, as a condition of the legal agreement, first refusal on the Hammond land (~2400 acres) valued at about $400K.

The first burn was back in 2001, the fire jumped into federal land and burned ~125 acres. In 2006 they did another burn and unintentionally burned ~1 acre if federal land. The first burn, for invasive plant species control, was done without a permit. The second burn was to make a fire brake due to a wildfire caused, it is alleged, by a lightning strike on federal land.

The feds brought, in late 2009, a 19 count indictment for the 2001 burn under terrorism statutes.

The Hammonds were screwed when they refused to sell their land to the feds.

http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/e...convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

I recommend that you read the linked data on a empty stomach.
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
This should get you started.

http://www.google.com

Again, this is the Information Age. Take advantage of it. There are threads on this very forum with all the info and citations.

Some interesting google results:

""The Bundys claim their ancestors worked the land before the BLM even existed.""
Of course, the Bundy claim of ancestral ownership in 1877 was proven long ago to be an outright lie.

""However, it turns out that Bundy's "1877" claims was in fact bogus. An investigation by KLAS-TV Las Vegas reveals that Bundy's parents moved from Arizona to Nevada and bought the 160-acre ranch in 1948, from its previous owners. The Bundy's wouldn't begin using this land for their cattle to graze until the 1950's.""
http://www.factandmyth.com/conspiracy-theory/cliven-bundys-cattle-and-the-federal-land-grab

Of course, "the BLM's roots go back to the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787."
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/About_BLM/History.html
 
Top