Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Breaking News
posted by takyon on Wednesday January 27 2016, @11:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the i-fought-the-law-and... dept.

Previously: Militia Occupies Federal Building in Oregon After Rancher Arson Convictions

Russia Today reports:

Ammon Bundy, the leader of the armed group occupying a federal wildlife refuge near Burns, Oregon, and four others have been arrested by law enforcement amid gunfire, according to the FBI.

At 4:25 pm on [January 26], the FBI and Oregon State Police "began an enforcement action to bring into custody a number of individuals associated with the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. During that arrest, there were shots fired", the Bureau said in a statement.

The FBI said one person who was "a subject of a federal probable cause arrest is deceased". He said they are not releasing any information on the person "pending identification by the medical examiner's office".

One person suffered non-life threatening injuries and was taken to a local hospital for treatment. He was arrested and is in custody.

The arrested individuals include:
- Ammon Edward Bundy, age 40, of Emmett, Idaho.
- Ryan C. Bundy, age 43, of Bunkerville, Nevada.
- Brian Cavalier, age 44, of Bunkerville, Nevada.
- Shawna Cox, age 59, of Kanab, Utah.
- Ryan Waylen Payne, age 32, of Anaconda, Montana.

CNN, NYT, Washington Post, BBC, OregonLive.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:42PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:42PM (#295300)

    Their arguments were not that the government should not own land, but that the federal government should not own land. They try and justify this opinion by going to the constitution and pulling from a section that says the fed can own seven types of land six being defense and one being the district of columbia. The other justification they used was that the western states were entered into the union against the constitutional outline granted to previous states, states were intended to be entered in as equals but unlike the eastern states and those after the Louisiana purchase.

    One of the stipulations to being brought in as equals was equal land ownership. Yet western states can max out at 80% of federal ownership of land. Compare to Louisiana's ~4.5.

    The argument I heard against them was a lot of "they aren't from oregon" but this is a western state vs eastern state issue. I reside in oregon and I don't agree with their methods but I can see where they come from. I spent some time in Alaska where there are pretty big land disputes between the state/people and the fed.

    One example I always enjoy.
    http://www.adn.com/article/cantwell-resident-trouble-helping-troopers-salvage-caribou [adn.com]

    Not sure how many of you spend time out in the woods, here in Oregon I always make sure to have a couple different BLM maps on me because of stories like above, and there are many. Boundaries change often and are not always marked, but that wont save you from getting arrested if you arent careful.

    But hey I live in Oregon where the fed is not heavy handed, so fuck those cooks right? Good riddens I say.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Interesting=2, Informative=3, Total=5
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:19PM (#295335)

    In a practical sense, of the western states that have 80% Fed ownership, do those states want that 30% on their books? At the state level, has this been brought up? I'm sure it is an issue when the Fed says something can or can't be done on the land that the state disagrees with and then it is horribly unfair, but what about when there are disasters, fires, floods, earthquakes, etc.? I'm pretty sure the Bundys of the world would regret their position if the states got that land back and charged them grazing fees that are closer to market value. Then what, that the states aren't allowed to own land either?

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:47PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:47PM (#295354) Journal

      Market value? If they pay "market value" for the feed you will pay for that "market value" in the store. Ready to pay $20/lb for that hamburger? Sure, vegans will smile and say that's mete, but carnivores won't be happy about that at all, and there are orders of magnitude more carnivores than vegans.

      There is a common conceit I hear from life-long suburbanites and urbanites, that farmers and ranchers don't matter because they're poor and few and remote and dumb etc, etc, etc. But the veg and meat that magically shows up in their corner delis is produced by those farmers and ranchers, and the suburbanites and urbanites wouldn't last a fortnight without it because sure as shootin' none of them could grow a vegetable or catch a fish or raise livestock to save their lives. Worse, the ones under 30 would cease to exist if take-out stopped working, never having deigned to eat canned food or cook their own meals in their lives.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:24PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:24PM (#295380)

        So you are one of those snookered into the "family farm" thing, huh? Those farm bills we aren't allowed to question, presumably because of our "common conceit", because it is all about the little farmers, you know Dorothy's family, those two in that Grant Wood painting, you know the ones who look so sad because of those nasty urbanites looking down on them, those farm bills that small farmers opppose [organicconsumers.org] but are told it is all about them? I've seen plenty of your posts decrying the "support the troops" mantra? How is that different? What about the children? The children of the troops? Are you really so callous to be so mean to the little faces? Other than in that vacuous cranium of yours, who the hell says farmers and ranchers don't matter? Pulling out the old GWB "they say" rhetoric, are we ("there are those out there who say we should deport poor women, children, and stomp on puppies, cute puppies, but not me! I say not on my watch!")?

        No, I'm talking about market value for the grazing rights. Ones that are 5X larger when it is even state land, let alone private land [biologicaldiversity.org]. But even if we stick to your example, the price of hamburger isn't driven by freeloaders who squat on Federal land, refuse to pay at all, then try to make this into an oppressive government issue instead.

        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 28 2016, @02:10AM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday January 28 2016, @02:10AM (#295712) Journal

          I don't even know if you're talking to me AC, because you must have me confused with someone else. I never decry the "support the troops" mantra because I never talk about that topic at all.

          In case you were talking to me, then I'll point out I was talking about ranchers, not farmers, because the issue is grazing rights. Nobody but a dyed-in-the-wool city slicker would confuse those two groups, because they have much different lives and outlooks. If we were talking about farmers and farm bills, etc., then of course we'd have to talk about Archer Daniels Midland and Monsanto, etc, but as far as I'm aware there is no equivalent of ADM for ranchers. But we're talking about ranchers, not farmers, so your point is moot.

          You better believe that if the federal government socks it to the ranchers you will feel it in your pocketbook if you eat meat. They don't have margins to absorb that cost without passing it on. If they can't pass the cost along, they will go out of business, the available supply of meat will drop, and the price you pay at the market will anyway.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 2) by slinches on Wednesday January 27 2016, @06:33PM

      by slinches (5049) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @06:33PM (#295450)

      I can understand the federal government owning and maintaining the land required to successfully execute the responsibilities required of them by the constitution. Outside of that, land within the state should belong to the state and the federal government should have no say in its use (with the exception of inter-state disputes like water rights).

      • (Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 28 2016, @09:06AM

        by dry (223) on Thursday January 28 2016, @09:06AM (#295853) Journal

        That's how it works in Canada. The Provinces are in control of most all the land in their respective Province with a few exceptions. Though some are a bit weird like railways seem to be solely Federal, possibly written into the Constitution when BC joined under the condition of a rail link.

        • (Score: 2) by slinches on Thursday January 28 2016, @02:39PM

          by slinches (5049) on Thursday January 28 2016, @02:39PM (#295924)

          Yeah, a quick look at this map [worldofmaps.net] will help illustrate why some people are pissed off about it. Only the plain white parts are state land.

  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:39PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:39PM (#295350) Journal

    Jesus, that Alaska story perfectly encapsulates how clueless feds are. They ordered a guy in a boat going down a river to stop, so he pulled over to the bank instead of stopping in mid-stream so they arrested him for failure to comply? Is it any wonder that these guys have a deep and abiding hatred for idiot bureaucrats?

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.