The Bundy’s are BACK! There should be some sort of ranchem’ up song playin’ in the background and a lot of hollerin’ an stuff. They represent the Wild Wild West as it used to be, where men were men and cowboys were damn straight. They have roped and tousled and staved and maneuvered, not so much their cattle as the Federal Government which they say they want O-U-T of their business!
Their stated cause? They want the government to keep its pernicious nosy nose out of their business, and their land, and their law. They feel pushed, way to far. They feel the redline has been crossed and they are just – done.
It’s a matter of principle. They are supporting a father and son who were convicted of arson on Federal land in 2001 and 2006 respectively. The conviction was held in a US District Court, the judge sentenced the men and they served their terms. But the Feds didn’t think it was enough and decided to appeal the case and charge the men with a part of a law that was instituted in 1996 allowing them to classify the case as ‘domestic terrorism’. As a result, the two men would be required to fulfil a far more lengthy prison term in a Federal Penitentiary and as a result quite possibly loose their ranch, their land and everything they know.
It sets an example that the states are no longer in control and sentencing by the Feds can override State convictions and sentencing. A MAJOR problem of the Federal Government reaching beyond and into purses, pockets, wallets, homes, and homesteads. A halleluja moment!
According to our Constitution, the Federal laws are supreme and take precedence when there is a conflict. However, historically, the Feds have not used this clause in defence of a case in which the positive outcome for the person or persons involved was issued by the state. In the past, the Feds sought to over-turn a state law or application that they felt was ‘unconstitutional’ or damaging to a group, such as discriminatory practices or practices that had their intention of harming the general population. This is different. Much different. Because this time, the general population is – the Federal Government. And this time – the practice is saving one’s own home from destruction.
Applying the Fourteenth Amendment which states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.“, it would appear that the Feds are tipping their glove and looking for citizens to attack.
According to the US Code, the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(a)involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
The arson crime was committed on BLM land confiscated by the Federal Government. There was no civilian population present, no assassination, intimidation or coercion influence. The ‘mass destruction’ clause could possibly be referenced, as the land was grassland. What happened? In 2001, the Hammond’s called the local fire station and informed them they were going to perform a routine ‘burn’ on their ranch grassland. The fire encroached Federal lands and burned 127 acres of grassland. The Hammond’s put out the fires and thought all was dandy. Silence.
Five years later, in 2006, lightening struck the lands on and near the Hammond’s ranch and started multiple fires. The Hammond’s used a backfire to save their land and ranch from being completely destroyed. It was then the Feds took notice and arrested them on Oregon State charges. The County DA dropped all charges.
In 2011, the Feds came back and altered the charge to “Domestic Terrorism”. The charge carries a minimum sentence of five years and a maximum sentence of – death.
What does the BLM want? Apparently they want the land. They have tried unsuccessfully to force and/or coerce the Hammond’s to sell them the land. Having confiscated or bought all the surrounding land in the 1970’s after instituting a law that grossly limited the ability of ranchers to allow their cattle to graze, the ranchers left. That left the Hammonds and they weren’t moving.
So the BLM attempted to squeeze them out by restricting water rights. Still the family held. Undeterred, the BLM moved to force the sale by putting the men in a Federal Penitentiary on trumped charges. They had already served their sentences according to the US District Court Ruling, and they paid fines totaling $400,000! But the BLM just wasn’t happy.
Enter the Bundys. Also ranchers. And while there is no connection between the Bundy’s and Hammond’s, they saw intimidation, they saw coercion, they saw false testimony and trumped charges and they cried FOUL! Because it wasn’t the civilians committing Domestic Terrorism, it was the Feds. And once it starts, it doesn’t stop.
Where could the tentacles reach? Well, right here in Colorado where Marijuana is legal. Given that Marijuana is not legal under Federal Law, the “Domestic Terrorism” charge could be applied to any one individual as ‘an intention to intimidate or coerce a civilian population”. The Constitutional Supremacy law could also find jurisdiction and leave Colorado, Washington, and the other 21 states including DC vulnerable to – vengeance, coercion, intimidation, and whim.
This is obviously using the Constitutional application of supremacy to seek vengeance against these two men. Is it legal? Well, I suppose that depends who is doing the analyzing and researching. Are they victims? Damn Straight!
And the Bundy’s? They are the Cowboys, like Anonymous, who see a tremendous grievance of justice and seek to make it right.
Where is the GOP? Probably trying to decide if the polls say yeah or nay….before they take a stance.