And if a civilian wearing this is one of your spokesman, LEAVE
By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammond's were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that *given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.* The court vacated the original, unlawful sentences and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced *in compliance with the law.* In March 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds’ petitions for certiorari. Today, Chief Judge Aiken imposed five year prison terms on each of the Hammonds, with credit for time they already served.
So, sounds legit, not like some retroactive reasoning just to punish them. A "JURY CONVICTED", Maybe they should have had a better defense attorney. These people are no different than the ones that riot after a person gets a no bill from a grand jury. These guys had a trial. A dozen folks from that part of the country decided they arsoned up the place.
This is what happens when the rule-of-law is undermined, dismissed, or otherwise ignored... ESPECIALLY if such violations are committed by those in power. It's not supposed to be just the ones you like. You don't get to choose which laws you're going to enforce, and which ones aren't "fair," or "not who we are as Americans." I don't support such lawlessness at all. But I do understand the causation and frustration that makes these guys seem like they are doing good works against "the man.". However, it's for a dubious cause, an unclear purpose, and stands to harm all of us on the behalf of two dipshits who broke the law as verified by a jury of their peers and who have made a point of distancing themselves from the Bundy clan. All this fight the power ******** in support of some deadbeats tenants (Bundys) who leased land then didn't want to pay for it. This is the white rural version of the Furgeson riots...you guys might want to think about that. These guys are neither domestic terrorist, yet, nor are they modern day minute men.
If they intend a peaceful demonstration, why the guns? Their right to self defense is nullified to a large extent by their actions that place them in the position where they might fear force being used against them. This is not a government assault on their homes, but rather the opposite, the government is being assaulted by them. In my mind, you give up your right to be armed when committing a crime. That this is a crime is not really in dispute. They have occupied land they have no legal grounds to occupy, being there interferes with the lawful use of that land by the lawful owners and causes alarm, they have stated they are staying and attempt to move them will be resisted. How many of you were howling for the police to clear the interstates when it was the black lives matter folks doing it? They were wrong and these guys are wrong. You can't have your rule of law cake and eat it too.
Now it may be a "victimless crime" at this time, but it's still wrong. What's next? taking over military facilities...peacefully, of course? Or maybe a nun and a priest or two sneaking onto a DOE facility? How about if this was a group of armed, peaceful muslims angry about immigration? The corollary to Ferguson has already been drawn. Are we more sympathetic to these thugs because they are white? Because maybe we harbor some resentment about how things are going in our country? If so, then you agree in principle to all the riotous shits in Baltimore and Missouri, and Cleveland, and Chicago, and... If lawbreaking is nullified because of *feelings* then we are all screwed. Way to make a real issue with Federal land rights into a clown show.
By introducing the guns to the equation, they are raising the stakes purposefully and muddying the waters.This is only a second amendment issue because they are attempting to make it one, thus recruiting support for their cause, which is not necessarily the cause of others. The place to defend that right is ultimately on your own land, not another's where you are acting illegally. The Federal Government has no obligation to forfeit use or possession of it's land, for any amount of time, to an armed temper tantrum.
Again, peaceful protests are fine. But bringing weapons with you when committing crimes is not. Not at this point, and not over this issue. If the Bundy Bunch's actions are reasonable, as a means to express their outrage and grievances, likewise reasonable, in their own context, are the actions of trespassers at nuclear facilities or neighborhood CVS and shoe stores.
BLM might be a horrible agency, but what is the actual relevance in this situation? I mean the Hammonds broke the law and were/are being punished. How did BLM wrong them, not discounting other BLM wrongs. You can argue, rightly perhaps, that the mandatory minimum sentence in this case is foolish and inflexible. But you can't cogently argue it was unusual based on case law.
Furthermore, If you want to use this as your club to beat the BLM, the federal government, the prosecution or the Easter Bunny, you should look harder at what they are doing. There may be other cases or situations with real facts or intellectual arguments which merit further speculation, but this isn't it. There's a reason the Hammond's have disassociated themselves from the clown-show who are occupying a birdwatching station as their "hill to die on". They actually made a reasoned decision based on honest facts, events and circumstances.
