Assorted Militia/SovCit news,(formerly Bundy thread)

[twa]

I would argue you lost the right to defend yourself when you seized property you don't own.

 

I also concede your opinion is way more adult, mature, and responsible. Mine is ridiculous. Which is why I'm not in charge of anything of importance.

 

they certainly forfeit legal self defense if faced with officers of the law acting dutifully.

 

they don't lose the right to assert the use of self defense

 

now their credibility on the other hand is rather suspect.....to say the least 

[tshile]

they certainly forfeit legal self defense if faced with officers of the law acting dutifully.

 

they don't lose the right to assert the use of self defense

 

now their credibility on the other hand is rather suspect.....to say the least 

 

I suppose that depends on state laws, or maybe I'm wrong. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding my state is that you lose the right to defend yourself (legally) if you're in the act of committing a crime.

 

But i also don't live in a state that lets you shoot someone for stealing the neighbors TV

[twa]

I suppose that depends on state laws, or maybe I'm wrong. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding my state is that you lose the right to defend yourself (legally) if you're in the act of committing a crime.

 

But i also don't live in a state that lets you shoot someone for stealing the neighbors TV

 

I'm outa likes 

 

this obviously is a pre-emptive assertion....there is no law till there is lawmen/women there....only reports/speculation.

 

west of the Pecos law doctrine 

 

[PCS]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/us/native-tribe-blasts-oregon-takeover/index.html

 

 

 

 

Native tribe blasts Oregon takeover

Burns, Oregon (CNN)The leaders of the Burns Paiute tribe have a message for the men and women who havetaken over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge outside Burns, Oregon: "Go home. We don't want you here."

The message came from several tribe members whose ancestors fought and died over portions of that land long before the ranchers and farmers had it, long before the federal government even existed.

The tribe is still fighting over land use but now works with the federal government's Bureau of Land Management to save its archaeological sites.

"We have good relations with the refuge. They protect our cultural rights there," said tribal council Chairwoman Charlotte Rodrique.

The Bureau of Land Management is the same agency that has riled up Nevada rancher Ammon Bundy and the armed protesters who joined him from out of state. The men took over the wildlife refuge headquarters, saying they would stay until the land was returned to who they consider its owners, the 100 or so ranchers and farmers who worked the land as far back as 1900.

"We are exercising our constitutional rights. We won't leave until these lands have been turned over to the their rightful owners," Bundy said. "More than 100 ranchers and farmers used to work this land, which was taken illegally by the federal government."

The Paiute tribe decided it was time to speak about what's happening at the refuge. They did so at length and with plenty of emotion.

"They just need to get the hell out of here," tribal council member Jarvis Kennedy told a crowd of reporters and local residents who showed up to listen to what the tribe had to say on the matter.

 

*Click Link For More* 

 

Video of some of above. 

 

https://www.facebook.com/KGWTV8/videos/10153165332175736/

 

 

 

 

Judging from a few comments made by some Native Americans on sites,the non-action by the Government has touched a nerve,(to say the least).  

 

Also. Burns Residents say get out as well. 

 

http://www.opb.org/news/article/harney-county-residents-speak-out-on-occupation/

[tshile]

Didn't they say they'd leave if asked to?

Well...

[Larry]

Debatable, at a minimum.

 

18 USC 2381, Treason, says:

(Incredibly long attempt at one of the biggest stretches I've ever seen removed, for brevity.)

So, just to be clear, am I accurately understanding you as trying to argue that:

1) Treason is making war.

2) War is armed conflict.

3) These people are armed.

4) And they have a difference of opinion (therefore a "conflict") with representatives of the US Government.

5) Therefore, the unopposed occupation of an abandoned piece of property in the middle of nowhere is treason?

 

And this is with a straight face?  It's not sarcasm? 

[TheGoodBits]

So, just to be clear, am I accurately understanding you as trying to argue that:

1) Treason is making war.

2) War is armed conflict.

3) These people are armed.

4) And they have a difference of opinion (therefore a "conflict") with representatives of the US Government.

5) Therefore, the unopposed occupation of an abandoned piece of property in the middle of nowhere is treason?

And this is with a straight face? It's not sarcasm?

Larry- you are going to run into differences of opinion with your point #5. "Abandoned" in this case is just "closed for the winter." And "unopposed" just means "we'll let them sit there for awhile to see if we can avoid bloodshed."

But make no mistake, if the FBI came to arrest them (for trespassing) and remove them from the facility, and they followed through with their threats, that would certainly be in armed conflict with the United States of America.

[Larry]

Larry- you are going to run into differences of opinion with your point #5. "Abandoned" in this case is just "closed for the winter." And "unopposed" just means "we'll let them sit there for awhile to see if we can avoid bloodshed."

But make no mistake, if the FBI came to arrest them (for trespassing) and remove them from the facility, and they followed through with their threats, that would certainly be in armed conflict with the United States of America.

 

1)  So, your point is that well, it would be an armed conflict, if there were actually people shooting at each other? 

 

2)  And could you explain to me the difference between your hypothetical war against the US and, say, the bank robbery scene from Heat?  I mean, that had armed people shooting at each other, too.  Therefore it was a war? 

[TheGoodBits]

1) So, your point is that well, it would be an armed conflict, if there were actually people shooting at each other?

2) And could you explain to me the difference between your hypothetical war against the US and, say, the bank robbery scene from Heat? I mean, that had armed people shooting at each other, too. Therefore it was a war?

I was only 7 when Heat came out and have never seen it.

You old fart.

In all seriousness though, it would come down to their stated intentions and objectives. Otherwise we would have no reason to think that, for example, the San Bernardino shooting was anything different than the real North Hollywood bank shootout from 97. They shot at people and killed them. What's the difference? Intentions and objectives.

Edited January 7, 2016 by skinsfan_1215

[GhostofSparta]

[justice98]

Oregon native tribe uneasy with armed standoff over land rights

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0UK1FS20160106

So these occupying clowns want "their" land back that was taken from their ancestors, but that was taken from the Native Americans before that.

[@DCGoldPants]

So these occupying clowns want "their" land back that was taken from their ancestors, but that was taken from the Native Americans before that.

 

The irony is completely lost on these ranchers.

 

1. The people they claim to support don't want them there, and have turned themselves in.

2. The local community has asked them to leave.

3. The Native American's in that area want them gone.

4. The Fed Gov't wants them gone.

 

Who exactly besides themselves, want them there? 

[Larry]

I'll certainly agree that things like intentions matter. 

 

And we have to look at actions, to try to divine intentions.  (At least, we often do.) 

 

These people chose to occupy an empty bird sanctuary in the middle of nowhere. 

 

From that, I conclude that they are not planning on trying to overthrow the government of the US and impose their own government. 

 

(Although, I will confess that, based on their actions, the theory that they actually did intend to overthrow the government, and they're just really stupid, does have a bit more credibility that it otherwise might.)

[Larry]

So these occupying clowns want "their" land back that was taken from their ancestors, but that was taken from the Native Americans before that.

Can we have a Cowboys and Indians fight?

[PleaseBlitz]

Debatable, at a minimum.

 

18 USC 2381, Treason, says:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

 

There are two key components there; 1) allegiance to the US and 2) levying war.

 

As much as they seem to hate the US government, they do say they are loyal to the US Constitution, and more importantly, are citizens, so 1) is met.

 

Levying war probably correlates to "act of war."  18 USC Ch. 115 doesn't actually have definitions set out, but 18 USC Ch. 113B does have a definition section and defines "act of war":

 

(4)the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—

(A)

declared war;

(

armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or

©

armed conflict between military forces of any origin;

 

B and C both could fit, potentially.  Both the US and these individuals are armed.  Further, taking control of the federal building was an act of force against the government.  Sure, no one resisted them, but by breaking, entering, and occupying the facility they committed an action against the laws of the United States.  A cold conflict, but a conflict nonetheless, and again, both sides are armed.

 

 

 

I don't think this is even debatable.

 

B can't fit, these dip****s arent a "nation."  Subsection B, in its entirety states:  "armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations."

 

So you are left with subsection C, and I think you are going to have to go to case law to determine what "armed conflict" means.  I doubt that showing up somewhere with guns counts as "armed conflict BETWEEN military forces" when 1)  law enforcement may be in the area, but as far as I can tell, no US military and 2) they are literally being allowed by law enforcement to come and go as they please.

 

Both the use of the word "between" and the plural "forces" means that there must be at least 2 military forces.  Even if you consider 10 dudes with hunting rifles and a box of beef jerky a military force (which is silly), thats only 1.  

Edited January 7, 2016 by PleaseBlitz

[justice98]

The irony is completely lost on these ranchers.

1. The people they claim to support don't want them there, and have turned themselves in.

2. The local community has asked them to leave.

3. The Native American's in that area want them gone.

4. The Fed Gov't wants them gone.

Who exactly besides themselves, want them there?

People on the internet that have no dog in the fight apparently, other than they hate the government too.

Can we have a Cowboys and Indians fight?

If last week at AT&T is any indication, I'll take the Indians in that matchup. lol

[China]

Oregon protest leader: 'There is a time to go home'

 

...

 

Bundy: FBI planning a raid

Late Tuesday, Bundy said he's been told the FBI has obtained five arrest warrants and planned to raid the property, an allegation federal or local law enforcement did not confirm.

 

The protest leader didn't name the source of his information. He said he talked to an unnamed "commissioner."

 

According to Bundy, the source said authorities were gathering "their equipment and their goons" at a local high school, where classes have been suspended, and "they were planning on coming in and raiding the refuge."

 

CNN asked the FBI about the possible existence of such warrants, but the bureau referred all questions to local authorities.

 

The Harney County Joint Information Center said it had no information on arrest warrants and that it was still working for a peaceful resolution to the occupation.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Button Picture

Just a heads up that your poll is broken. I tried to click on "Oregon militiamen are weak and should be mocked" but it just brought up a bigger picture.

Oregon protest leader: 'There is a time to go home'

 

...

 

Bundy: FBI planning a raid

Late Tuesday, Bundy said he's been told the FBI has obtained five arrest warrants and planned to raid the property, an allegation federal or local law enforcement did not confirm.

 

The protest leader didn't name the source of his information. He said he talked to an unnamed "commissioner."

 

According to Bundy, the source said authorities were gathering "their equipment and their goons" at a local high school, where classes have been suspended, and "they were planning on coming in and raiding the refuge."

He wants so bad for it to happen. It's driving him crazy that they're just letting him sit there. So transparent.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[mcsluggo]

Debatable, at a minimum.

 

18 USC 2381, Treason, says:

.......

......

....  Hit them with everything, let a jury sort it out.

 

how about when dirty hippie (wannabies) take over the dean's office at Colombia or UC-Berkley....  

 

 

... turn 'em into glass?

 

 

 

its irritating, and stupid, and moronic, and childish, and illegal.....        but our GOVERNMENT acting stupid and petulant and uselsessly macho doesn't improve things

 

 

i'm all for ridiculing them, cutting 'em off and not allowing visitors or supplies, and then arresting them when they come out.   there is no need for the side of justice and law to needlessly accelerate the situation.

 

 

 

..... y'all lives matter, too.  

[tshile]

I think I had this wrong the beginning.

 

I thought the threat was what they would do when the police/fbi/whatever tried to force them out.

 

I now see the real threat is what they will do when they finally get fed up with no one giving a ****.

 

I think that might be more dangerous, though honestly not sure.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Bundy: FBI planning a raid

Future headlines

 

Bundy: Really. They really are.

Bundy: Worried that FBI is going to rape our women

Bundy: It's been 4 months!!!! Please hurry up and raid us already!!!!

[justice98]

I can't see the Feds wanting that Waco visual of fire and gunplay and actually raiding this place.

i'm all for ridiculing them, cutting 'em off and not allowing visitors or supplies, and then arresting them when they come out. there is no need for the side of justice and law to needlessly accelerate the situation.

They went in there armed, do you think they're just gonna come out, relinquish their guns,.and be arrested peacefully? Edited January 7, 2016 by justice98

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I can't see the Feds wanting that Waco visual of fire and gunplay and actually raiding this place.

They're not going to and it's pissing Bundy off. Poor guy. He just wishes he was a bigger deal than he is. Always chasing the glory of his yesteryears like the time he scored 4 TDs in a single game at Polk High School.

[Larry]

They went in there armed, do you think they're just gonna come out, relinquish their guns,.and be arrested peacefully?

Well, it appears that they're already out of food. (Which certainly seems incredible, to me).

[tshile]

they should drop a box labeled supplies off outside, with a string attached to it.

 

when they come out to collect just pull it further away each time.

 

then post the video to youtube.