Reporting On So-Called Second Amendment Preservation Ordinances Is Wrong; Threats of Violence From Militias

Here in Oregon, pro-gun extremist militias are pushing some local ballot measures they call "Second Amendment Preservation Ordinances" which would give county sheriffs unprecedented power which are constitutionally reserved for judges, to interpret gun laws themselves and choose whether or not to enforce them based on their own opinions about what the Second Amendment protects.

From Ceasefire Oregon's Executive Director, Penny Okamoto, as cross-posted from the Ceasefire Oregon blog:

On November 2, 2018, Oregon Public Broadcasting published an inaccurate and inflammatory article about militia-backed ballot measures called “Second Amendment Protection” ordinances, or SAPs. These measures are appearing on some county ballots in Oregon. The article was repeated on the November 6, 2018 OPB morning radio broadcast.

Ceasefire Oregon reached out to the article’s author, Jonathan Levinson, and to OPB with the following email. If you wish to express concern or to ask that a correction be published today, please call OPB at 800-241-8123.

No voter should ever be subjected to threats of violence. Publishing these threats could intimidate voters or suppress voter turn out. OPB should have reported this to law enforcement, not given violence a public platform.

Dear Mr. Levinson,

Ceasefire Oregon is deeply concerned about several aspects of your November 2, 2018 article, “Sanctuary Cities For Gun Rights? Oregon Militias Try New Political Tactics.” First is the implied violence from Tom McKirgan, who claims membership in Oregon militias. Mr. McKirgan, a supporter of ballot measures for Sanctuary Cities for Gun Rights, admitted the militias are willing to engage in physical conflict if they do not achieve their goals on November 6. (“And if we have to fight physically to do it we will,” McKirgan said. “It’s just that simple.”)

We believe no voter should ever be subjected to a threat of violence. We question the wisdom of Oregon Public Broadcasting allowing a member of the Oregon militia (or anyone) to be quoted as saying that groups will “fight physically” if a voter does not agree with a supporter of a ballot measure. This statement is particularly concerning because the ballot measures could effectively place militia members or supporters of the militias in control of county law enforcement. As you know from your own October 30 article which featured Mr. McKirgan, he spent seventeen years in law enforcement and is a member of Oregon militias. Yet you chose to include his implied threat conspicuously as the last statement–without any comment or pushback–so readers are left with this thought in their memories.

Violent rhetoric never deserves a platform, especially not in the aftermath of bombing attempts and the brutal shooting massacre at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh.

In addition, we would like to address the inaccuracies and implied bias in your article. We urge you to address these publicly. We have provided corrections with explanations and citations.

• Second Amendment Protection (SAP) measures (referred to in your headline as “Sanctuary Cities for Gun Rights”) are not lawful.
  • SAPs clearly attempt to give county sheriffs the ability to amend firearm-related laws. According to Oregon law, ORS 166.170, that power rests with the Oregon legislature.1
  • In July 2018, Grant County Judge W. D. Cramer ruled2 that a Grant County SAP petition violated Oregon’s firearm preemption law (ORS 166.170).
  • SAPs attempt to require county sheriffs to “determine whether any law or regulation pertaining to the right to bear arms or related rights violates the U.S. or Oregon Constitution.” Local officials are not Supreme Court justices and do not have the authority to interpret any part of the US or Oregon Constitutions.
  • Constitutional law expert, Charles Hinkle, was quoted in a 2015 interview3 with “The Huffington Post” about the Coos County SAP.  Mr. Hinkle stated that, under the Coos County SAP, Coos County Sheriff Zanni “would be violating his oath of office by enforcing a county ordinance that is contrary to state or federal law. ‘Of course local officials can’t decide what laws are constitutional. That’s why Kim Davis went to jail,’ Hinkle told the Huffington Post.” Mr. Hinkle’s remarks refer to the inability of sheriffs to act as US Supreme Court Justices.
  • In fact, in your prior article, your cite Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin’s admission that “interpreting the Constitution is not part of his job or something that he’s qualified to do.”
• The Second Amendment is not an unlimited right.
  • Tom McKirgan stated (and you failed to correct his comment), “If you look at the Second Amendment where it says that it ‘shall not be infringed,’ that’s exactly what it means — our founders meant that.”
  • The late Justice Antonin Scalia’s ruling on the Heller decision clearly stated4,  “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
  • In the same opinion, Justice Scalia continued, “…nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
  • Justice Scalia clearly stated that the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right and that laws can be enacted that will prevent firearms from being accessed by people who would be harmful to self or others.
• SAPs are not protected by the Tenth Amendment.
  • The Supreme Court ruled in Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992) that the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from commandeering state governments to assist in enforcing federal law.5
  • Enforcement of federal law is the responsibility of federal law enforcement officials. Therefore, state and local police cannot be forced to detain a person merely to question that person’s U.S. citizenship status.
  • The Tenth Amendment does not give Oregon county sheriffs authority to ignore state laws or the laws of the Oregon Constitution.
  • The Oregon Firearm Safety Act (background checks for gun sales), laws prohibiting guns for stalkers, and the law providing for Extreme Risk Protection Orders are Oregon state laws, not federal laws. There is no Constitutional protection (federal or state) extended to county sheriffs to relieve them from their duty to enforce Oregon laws or allowing them to enact an initiative supporting such actions.
• SAPs have been ruled to be administrative in nature and, therefore, not the proper subjects for the initiative process.
  • SAPs attempt to change who interprets laws; they do not make new laws. Therefore, SAPs are administrative and not the proper subjects of the initiative petition process.
  • Judge W.D. Cramer ruled6 that the Grant County SAP, measure 12-72,  ran afoul of the initiative petition process under the Oregon Constitution, Article IV, Section 7 which states that petitions can only make new law.

Ceasefire Oregon was disappointed by the bias shown in your statement: “In a state where Democrats in Portland and Salem have used their control over all the major branches of government to push stricter gun laws, giving local officials control over enforcing the laws could gain traction.”

• People throughout the state voted for Democrats, not just in Portland and Salem.
• Your statement shows bias against Portland and Salem, and implies that voters in those cities do not deserve the same voice as voters in other parts of Oregon.
• Democrats have been elected by a majority of the citizens of Oregon. The will of the voters should not be dismissed because the Oregon militias disagree with the outcome of the vote.
• Your statement is biased against those who support effective gun laws. A vast majority of Oregonians, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, support stronger gun laws. In fact, according to a Benenson Strategy Group poll taken in 2015 during consideration of the Oregon Firearm Safety Act (SB 941), 87% of voters including 83% of gun owners supported background checks for firearm sales. The percentage of gun owners who support background checks has only increased throughout the country since 2015. Background checks for gun sales are now supported by 95% or more of gun owners queried in the 2018 Quinnipiac Poll and the November 2017 Gallup Poll.
• The gun violence prevention laws passed since 2015 are also popular. According to a March 2018 Quinnipiac poll, 89% of voters support Extreme Risk Protection Order laws (SB 719)  and 91% support prohibiting convicted stalkers from purchasing or possessing firearms (HB 4145).
• Clearly, voters support strong, effective gun laws and Democratic legislators have been working for years to pass laws that reduce gun violence.

Oregonians need clear and unbiased reporting on this issue. If passed, SAPs will usurp power from the legislative and judicial branches of counties, and leave citizens unsure of the processes of their own government. If a sheriff interprets a law, to whom does a citizen go to enforce a direct violation of that law? Who will have checks on the county sheriff? Will the county sheriff decide to determine the constitutionality of all the cases of the US Supreme Court? Will the sheriff decide to disallow immigration? Abortion? Voting?

The Second Amendment is already well protected by the gun lobbies and the US Supreme Court decisions Heller and McDonald. SAPs are an attempt by militias and the gun lobby to exert power over the executive branch of county and state government. Issues as grave as these deserve accuracy and fairness.

1. The law is well known to at least one of the backers of SAPs, the Oregon Firearms Federation, who used the firearm preemption law (ORS 166.170) in 2011 in a lawsuit that forced Oregon colleges to allow people with concealed carry handgun licenses to carry loaded, hidden guns onto Oregon University System campuses. Now, that group is deliberately flouting the firearm preemption law.
2. “The plain reading of measure 12-72 violates this statute [ORS 166.170] and by definition enters into an area that by law is not of county concern.” Grant County Circuit Case No.18CV19251, Judge W.D. Cramer, Jr., letter ruling, July 29, 2018.
3. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oregon-county-second-amendment-gun-laws_us_5638fcdee4b027f9b96a4ddc
4. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
5. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/95-1478
6. “Further [the measure] contains provisions that are not legislative in nature and; therefore, not proper for an initiative by definition.” Grant County Circuit Case No.18CV19251, Judge W.D. Cramer, Jr., letter ruling, July 29, 2018.
7. https://codes.findlaw.com/or/oregon-constitution/or-const-art-iv-sect-1.html

UPDATE (11/7/18): Unfortunately, 8 out of the 10 SAP measures passed. They will almost certainly be challenged in court.

No One Wants The Militia In Eastern Oregon, Including Everyone They Pretend To Represent

[UPDATE -- See note at bottom]

Why is the militia terrorizing Oregon?  Is it to defend the Hammond family?  Ranchers?  Indians?  The community?  The law?  Their God?  Or is it just a self-serving demonstration to push their own agenda on us?

When the armed Bundy Militia broke into and occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters, their justification for doing so was in order to defend the Hammonds from serving additional time in prison for poaching and arson on federal lands and trying to force their abused young relative to hide it.  Ammond Bundy, leader of the invasion, wrote back on December 26th:

An unbelievable amount of effort has been exhausted in prudent methods to correct the wrong that have come upon the Hammonds. When will it be enough? Should we go on forever because we are afraid to do what is our right to do? What will happen to the Constitution and individual rights if we allow these violations to go on without challenge?

One week later, he and his domestic terrorist buddies committed breaking-and-entering and became the latest case in an ever-increasing list of crimes and plots by militia groups.  But even before Bundy carried out the plan, when the militia had come to the area in a charade of being there for a peaceful protest, the Hammonds distanced themselves from the extremists.  In fact, the Hammonds had long since, on December 11, put out a statement through their lawyer clearly stating that they wanted nothing to do with the militia.  From the statement:

[N]either Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family, Dwight Hammond, or Steven Hammond.  I wish to report to you that, as recently ordered by the U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, Dwight Hammond and Steven Hammond intend to voluntarily report to the designated federal facility on January 4, 2016, as required.

But why let that stop a terrorist act?  So the Bundy militants decided to change their story.  The next claimed that they were there for all those poor ranchers, the "original occupants" as Bundy put it, who were displaced by the formation of Malheur a century ago by Teddy Roosevelt.  Well, it turns out that the majority of ranchers don't want them there either.  The Oregon Cattleman's Association opposes the occupation and rightly calls it an illegal activity:

The Oregon Cattleman's Association, however, in no way supports or endorses illegal activity against the government. We do support the Hammonds and we are doing so through legal avenues that are in accordance with the law. 

We have no association with the organizations that are participating in the illegal activity against the government. This would include the militia takeover of the Malheur wildlife refuge.

Although, when Bundy said "original occupants," he wasn't talking about the native Americans, was he?  Nonetheless, the Paiute tribe, who occupied the land before it was taken from them, put out a very clear statement opposing the militia occupation, calling them a "group of clowns" and "petty criminals."

Okay, so if they aren't representing the Hammonds or the "original occupants," then, um, they are representing the citizens around there.  Yeah, that's it....  According to the Bundys, they are there to help the community recognize its "rights," to "stand on its own," and to educate residents "so they will come to our side."  But even before the occupation, when the militia was still pretending to be there for a peaceful protest, local people were putting up signs telling them to leave.  Later, after the occupation began and there was increased outcry, Bundy stated: 

One of many signs against the militia put up
by local residents (source)

“This is their county – we can’t be here and force this on them,” Bundy told OPB Monday. “If they don’t want to retrieve their rights, and if the county people tell us to leave, we’ll leave.”

So a meeting was held, in which over 500 townspeople showed up and gave a very clear message that the militia was not welcomed and had to leave.  But when the sheriff personally delivered this message to the extremists, as he has done so on at least two occasions so far, telling them in the nicest of terms that they needed to respect the wishes of the community and leave, Bundy told him he wasn't going anywhere.  

Instead, Bundy formed his own committee of local community leaders, which he dubbed the Harney County Committee of Safety, to examine the issue.  So what did these hand-picked, presumably sympathetic locals tell Bundy?  They told him he had to go!  From an article:

“We feel that any good which may come out of this event has reached its full potential,” Molt said. “We ask that you organize your people, explain that your point has been made and leave in a peaceful, honorable fashion.” 

And yet, the militia still ignored them.

Okay, so if the community doesn't want them either, maybe they can justify their action based on the law?  At one point, one of the militia claimed he would stay "until the Constitution is upheld."  Well, he's free to take it up with the courts.  Last I checked, none of the terrorists are judges or lawyers, so any idea about what is Constitutional is surely poorly debated with these jokers.

(source for comic)

Or perhaps they feel God is the one to decide when they should leave?  After all, they have stated many times that they have taken up this terrorist act because God told them to do so, either by directly "telling" them to do it, or through omens like a flock of geese flying overhead.  Well, it turns out that's not much of a justification, either.  You see, the Bundys are devout Mormons, albeit a very extremist version of the religion.  Unfortunately for them, the Mormon leadership has also put out a statement against the militia's illegal actions:

While the disagreement occurring in Oregon about the use of federal lands is not a Church matter, Church leaders strongly condemn the armed seizure of the facility and are deeply troubled by the reports that those who have seized the facility suggest that they are doing so based on scriptural principles. This armed occupation can in no way be justified on a scriptural basis. We are privileged to live in a nation where conflicts with government or private groups can — and should — be settled using peaceful means, according to the laws of the land.

Hmm....  Well, if all of those justifications aren't valid, what's left?

The truth.  These domestic terrorists, and the other militia group that has now joined them and surrounded the county courthouse, have only one real motive:  terrorize the locals and the nation in order to push their own extreme agenda.

It's time to treat these terrorists they only way they should be treated:  Stop placating them.  Stop giving them a podium.  Blockade them in the compound and prevent more from entering or exiting unrestrained.  Cut off their electricity, water, and phones.  Demand that they surrender peaceably.  Then arrest them and charge them for their crimes.  We as a nation should not give in to terrorism of any sort, foreign or domestic.

UPDATE (1/10/16):  Bundy has changed his story again.  Now he says he and his terrorist buddies did the invasion to disrupt the Malheur employees and to retaliate against the government for jailing the Hammonds.  He doesn't care that he is labeled as a terrorist, because he fantasizes...

“By the same definition that you are using to label us,” Bundy said, “George Washington was a terrorist.”

Nope, Bundy, you're no General Washington.  Not even close.

UPDATE (1/11/16):  HERE you can find an video and listing of the names of each of these terrorists.

The militia now says they are never leaving unless the government completely shuts down the entire refuge and somehow turns it all over to the unnamed ranchers.  From an article:

"Now, remember, we're not walking away from here to have the federal government to come back in here. Absolutely not. That will not happen," Arizona rancher and Bundy camp spokesperson, LaVoy Finicum told KATU News.

And, to underscore that "goal," they have now decided to rummage through all the personal employee belongings and government files in a prelude to removing them from the headquarters, and have, in an act of vandalism, tampered with government videos and files to look for "evidence" of government wrongdoing to ranchers, as well as started removing the fencing on the property, which is needed to stop cattle from wandering into ecologically sensitive areas or from trespassing on areas where they are not allowed to graze.

.

The Lighter Side Of The #YallQaeda Terrorists

[UPDATED -- See at bottom]

Though the Bundy militia has shocked the world with their terrorist act, their threats of armed violence, and a stated willingness to kill or be killed, you have to admit there is an absolute ridiculousness to their ill-conceived and redneck attempt to get attention.  It's a bit of misfortune for them, really.  (Come to think of it, malheur translates to "misfortune" in French...)

If you stand back a bit from all the horror (the guns, the death threats and stalking of the sheriff, the religious zealotry, the way they are using children as human shields), it's actually sorta funny.

I mean, after all, you've got a bunch of bubbas in cowboy hats coming in from other states, invading a deserted building in the middle of a snowy, wind-swept nowhere, speaking for locals (who don't want them there), proclaiming themselves defenders of arsonist/poacher/child-abusers (who don't want them there), and demanding that the government suddenly dismantles the entire refuge and give it back to the original owners (by that they mean ranchers, who don't want them there, and not the Paiute Tribe, who don't want them there either), with no clear goals or really any clue as to a plan.  And then they urgently want us to send snacks!

Naturally, the internet came alive with snarky reactions.  First came the political cartoons, often poking fun at the fact that they chose a bird sanctuary as their target....

And then Twitter lit up with satirical hashtags, such as #YallQaeda, #VanillaISIS, #YeeHawdist, and others...

The Twitter reaction to the request for snacks was excellent...

as well as being lampooned on the Daily Show and Stephen Colbert.

And Twitter came alive with other spoof images...

But, perhaps best of all, Twitter users came up with homoerotic fan fiction to mock them, using #bundyeroticfanfic, starting with the singer for the Decemberists, Colin Meloy ....

Heck, I even added my own...

Hopefully this whole situation will end peaceably and we can keep laughing at these extremist morons.  One thing's for certain: however this ends, these thugs are a laughing stock.

UPDATE (1/8/16): Oh man.  Just to make the sordid situation any more laughable, one of the militiamen, Brian "Booda" Cavalier, abandoned the occupation when exposed as a fake for claiming he was an ex-marine, and another militiaman, Joe Oshaugnessy, absconded with donated money and drank it away at a local hotel.  Also, some of these "occupiers" have actually been staying at a local motel and eating at area restaurants, since the government has allowed them to come and go at will.  

And, just to add a little more chaos, members of another extremist militia, Veterans on Patrol, got into a brawl with the Bundy Militia guys after showing up to urge them to release the children from the compound, leading to minor injuries.  See images, at right, from their Facebook page:

The rest of the world is both horrified and entertained by the militia invasion.  HERE is a video made by some Japanese, mocking them.
.

The Malheur "Occupiers" Meet The Definition of Domestic Terrorists, Seditionists, and Religious Militants, So Why Are They Being Tolerated?

Three days ago, armed men broke into and took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters, but so far our government hasn't done a single thing about it.  I believe that part of the problem is the way these people are being referred to.

Writer Christian Drake said it best in the title of his Jan 3 article:  "Why the Hell Are Our News Media Whitewashing Domestic Terrorism in Oregon?"  Over and over I am seeing these militants referred to as "occupiers," "protesters," or "ranchers."  Some articles have called them "militia," at least, which is closer to the heart of the matter.

"We're not terrorists; we just want what any true
patriot wants: to take down the United States of America."
(from the New Yorker)

While it's true that they are occupying the buildings there, and some may be ranchers, make no mistake about it:  this is not just some sit-in protest, like the Occupy Movement, with citizens peacefully sitting or standing, unarmed, and waving signs.  If that were the case, I imagine this would be a whole different scene that garnered some public sympathy.  No, this is something much more ominous.  You don't show up with guns and promise violence if removed, and then claim you are just peaceful protesters who "are not looking to hurt anyone."  

These militia men easily fit the definition of terrorists in the U.S. Code:

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

• Appear intended (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

• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

• Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and

• Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

These Bundy militia men arrived, armed, with the stated intention of killing or being killed and to have a violent conflict if law enforcement tried to remove them.  Just today, they tweeted "We have remained peaceful. If the authorities raid us unnecessarily we can't guarantee that continues. We are prepared to defend ourselves." (and then he had the gall to compare himself to Rosa Parks!).

They violated federal law by breaking in and occupying.  They have taken up armed strategic positions, including in a watch tower.  And their stated intention is to coerce the government into changing its policies and dissolving the entire wildlife refuge.  With all that in mind, they meet the criteria of "domestic terrorists."  If they fire a single shot, the self-defined "patriots" will also be committing a "federal crime of terrorism" and an act of insurrection.

The acts of these militia men also fit the definition of sedition, according to U.S. Code (highlighting added):

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both". 

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.) 

I would hardly call a seditious act representative of "patriots," would you?

Finally, the title of "militants" certainly applies, as well.  The term "militant" is defined as follows:

mil·i·tant / ˈmilətənt/• adj. combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods: an uprising by militant Islamic fundamentalists.• n. a person who is active in this way.

Given that they have shown up armed and willing to die and engage in violence if confronted, for their political cause, and are certainly confrontational, I'd say they fit this definition precisely.

Finally, they are religious extremists.  A number of these militants have stated that they have undertaken this occupation for religious reasons.  

It turns out that the Bundy family and many of their militia at the Malheur headquarters are adherents to a particularly extremist form of Mormonism.  One referred to himself as "Captain Moroni," a reference to a Mormon figure who specialized in weapons and battle strategy and who wanted to overthrow his government in the name of freedom.  From the article:

The man identifying as Captain Moroni said he was inspired by the call, and that the inspiration was validated by God in the form of a flock of geese he saw flying. 

I just knew it was the right thing [to come to Oregon]," Captain Moroni said. "I'm willing to die here."

The Bundy's had previously couched their prior standoff with the government in religious terms, and have continued to do so with this standoff.  Ryan Bundy has stated about his role in the Malheur takeover, "My Mormonism plays a large part in what I do … the biggest part.”  His brother, Ammon Bundy, has stated:

“I got this urge that I needed write something,” Bundy said. “I asked the good Lord…I need some help. And he gave me that help. The Lord is not pleased what has happened with the Hammonds.”

Ammon also stated in a YouTube call to arms, "I did exactly what the Lord asked me to do."  And further said in that video:

"I began to understand how the Lord felt about the Hammonds," Bundy says in the video. "I began to understand how the Lord felt about Harney County and about this country. And I clearly understood that the Lord was not pleased with what was happening to the Hammonds…. If we allowed the Hammonds to continue to be punished, there would be accountability."

I would like to ask him how, exactly, the Lord told him this.  Did he call him up on the phone?  A booming voice in his head?  A dream?  Or did he, like "Captain Moroni," read omens in the actions of geese?  It says a lot about Bundy's beliefs that he thinks God approves of arming yourself and preparing to kill police as part of a militant takeover of federal buildings.

The Mormon Church, by the way, has issued a statement condemning these extremists, stating:

While the disagreement occurring in Oregon about the use of federal lands is not a Church matter, Church leaders strongly condemn the armed seizure of the facility and are deeply troubled by the reports that those who have seized the facility suggest that they are doing so based on scriptural principles. This armed occupation can in no way be justified on a scriptural basis. We are privileged to live in a nation where conflicts with government or private groups can — and should — be settled using peaceful means, according to the laws of the land.

But apparently these "devout Mormons" prefer to ignore the statements of their own church leaders.  Thus they are extremists even by the definition of their own religious leaders.  A prominent Mormon writer and theologian agrees with those church leaders.

My understanding is that the United States Government does not negotiate or tolerate terrorists, domestic or foreign.  So why haven't they yet taken any action against these extremists??  People are still coming and going without being blocked, supplying these militants with food and supplies.  The militia is still in full contact with the press and the public and the internet.  And they still have electricity, water, and phones (though that may change soon).  As far as I can tell, the most the Government has done is "monitor" the situation and issue a statement by the District Attorney, as well as some statements against them by lawmakers.  At least the county sheriff has issued a statement urging the militia, in the nicest of terms, to please leave.  A call that has been roundly ignored.

These men said they were there for the Hammonds, until the Hammonds told them they weren't wanted.  Then the militia changed their story and said they would leave if the community wanted them to.  But they have ignored the very apparent calls from the community to leave.  Nearly a dozen schools in the area are closed for the entire week out of fear of these extremists.  You'd think that might be an obvious signal to them, certainly more obvious than reading the intentions of the Lord through flying geese.  So now they have changed their story again, saying that “The purpose of this whole thing is getting people excited. And (the people in Harney County) are excited that this is taking place" and to educate residents "so they'll come on to our side."  I don't think so.  It seems to me their only motive is to get attention in as dramatic style as possible, like some tantruming toddler, and to terrorize the nation.

The government's lack of action is only emboldening the militia at Malheur, as well as other militia groups, such as the one in Eugene that is distributing militant propaganda fliers.

And now these militia have brought children onto the compound!  Given that these militants have stated an intention to kill or be killed and to react violently if someone tries to remove them, I can only imagine that they are using these children as human shields.  Is this something our government should tolerate, as well??

So how do you label these people?  A poll by the Washington Post has 70% of responders labeling them as "terrorists" and "extremists."  So why don't our media and government?

The Bundy Militia has a long history of violence and intimidation.  It's long past time to stop tolerating these seditionists and criminals.  I urge our law enforcement to take immediate action.  Blockade the compound and stop anyone from going in to supply and enable these militants.  Cut off their electricity, water, and phone.  Stop giving them a podium to spew their extremist views.  And insist they give up peaceably and submit to arrest and trial.  These are domestic terrorists.  Treat them that way!



ADDENDUM:  A related article, by an international security analyst and military historian, Tom Mockaitis, disputing the term "militia" for these domestic terrorists.

Also, as demonstrated in an interview, Ammon Bundy doesn't even understand the definition of the word "terrorism" or how it applies to him and his actions.

Pro-Gun Militia Show Their True Criminal Colors In Armed Takeover Of Malheur Ranger Station

[This has also been reposted as an Opinion piece at Newsweek.com, HERE]

[UPDATED -- see at bottom]

A group of armed militia members, led by the criminal Bundy family, broke into and occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Ranger Station in southeast Oregon, near the little town of Burns.  They claim to do this in protest of two east Oregon ranchers who were found guilty of arson and sentenced to prison.

Image of occupiers near the Malheur ranger station
(image from witness Jason Wilson)

Yes, you read that correctly.  As is so typical of pro-gun extremists, they have shown their true colors and broken the law, breaking and entering into a federal property.  The Malheur ranger station was closed for the New Years holiday, so no one was there.  From an article:

Among the occupiers is Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and two of his brothers. Militia members at the refuge claimed they had as many as 100 supporters with them. The refuge, federal property managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was closed and unoccupied for the holiday weekend. 

In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them, they said. 

"The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds," Ammon Bundy said. 

"We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," he added. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute." ....

"The best possible outcome is that the ranchers that have been kicked out of the area, then they will come back and reclaim their land, and the wildlife refuge will be shut down forever and the federal government will relinquish such control," he said. 

Birdwatchers enjoying the "tyranny"
of the Malheur Refuge (source)

They claim to have up to 150 in their group.  More likely it's just a dozen or so, according to one witness.  Their intent?  According to their own leaders, they intend to "provoke a standoff with the federal government" and to "lay my life down in order to fight tyranny."

Really?  Their chosen site for this "showdown" is a ranger station which spends the majority of its time protecting wetlands for migrating water fowl and restoring aquatic and forest lands.  Wow, these losers are really macho, aren't they?

And the only "tyranny" here is a bunch of armed now-felons terrorizing the local community.

But, hey, there is a long history of militia members and groups committing crimes and plots, including murder, insurrection, and even genocidal schemes.  So it's not like this is totally unexpected.  In most countries, "citizen militias" would be outlawed for what they are: homegrown terrorist organizations. This is just the latest and, perhaps, most flagrant of examples.

This occupation follows a peaceful parade by around 100 anti-government sympathizers earlier in the day in Burns, Oregon, organized by a small-time right-wing talk show host.  They met in a Safeway parking lot to do speeches, then marched a mile to the home of one of the convicted ranchers they support, and then drove to the local Sheriff's office to throw pennies at the building for some reason (which were quickly snatched up by a couple of girls), before returning to the Safeway parking lot.  But pro-gun bullies hate peaceful protests.  Successful peaceful protests run counter to their flawed argument that guns are needed to enact change.

The whole justification that these men have for their crime is supposedly to fight for the rights of the Hammond family and other local ranchers, according to the Bundy family blog.  Naturally, being felons themselves, they would support other convicted felons.  You see, the two Hammond men, Dwight Lincoln Hammond, 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, were convicted of poaching and arson on federal land.  From the District Attorney's statement:

The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area.  Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property.  Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.”  One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson.  The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations.  After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands.  Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire. 

The jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area.  An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires.  Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed.  The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby.  The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons.

And the Hammonds had initially served a small amount of time in prison for their crimes, not fulfilling the five-year minimum sentence required by law [Ruling].   So now they have been re-sentenced, and the jury was by peers from their area.  Did the Bundys or the militia care one iota about this case when it first happened?  Nope.  They didn't do a thing.  It's only now that they have a "call to action."

But here's the truly laughable part:  The Hammonds don't want the militia there!  They put out a statement, through their lawyer, publicly distancing themselves from the Bundy family and their actions, and that they are willingly submitting to the sentencing!

And many of the local community have come out in opposition to the militia activities.  According to one article:

Sign hung at a home in Burns, Oregon (source)

“I want them to go home,” resident Bee Bee Sitz said. “We take care of ourselves.” 

Another resident, Kainan Jordan, said, “I don’t think all of these outsiders coming here is necessary. I think they intimidate the local people.”

And locals have hung "Militia go home!" signs and "Go Home Bundys" signs around their neighborhoods.

From a CNN article:  

"I don't like the militia's methods," local resident Monica McCannon told KTVZ. "They had their rally. Now it's time for them to go home. People are afraid of them."

This plot is so ill-conceived and so specific to the Bundy schemes that even the Oathkeepers, a militia group that is typically in the center of most pro-gun and insurrectionist plots, such as their recent attempt to provoke a "war" with the government over a small gold mine in southwest Oregon, has distanced itself from the whole effort.  From a statement by their founder (emphasis included):

BECAUSE THE HAMMOND FAMILY DOES NOT WANT AN ARMED STAND OFF, AND THEY WISH TO TURN THEMSELVES IN, OATH KEEPERS WILL NOT TAKE PART IN ANY ATTEMPT TO CREATE A STAND OFF IN BURNS, OREGON. ....

[I]f they don’t want their family in the middle of an armed stand off and have decided it is best to just go back to prison, no patriot group or individual has the right or the authority to force an armed stand off on the Hammond family, or around them, against their wishes.  You cannot help someone who does not want your help, and who are not willing and ready to take a hard stand themselves. ....

This org cannot and will not force itself on a family who does not want the help. 

I can't imagine a more pitiful example of a "revolution" than this.  Not only do the Hammonds and the community not want the militia there, but the crime is taking place in one of the most remote and sparsely-populated areas of Oregon, at a time of year when no one goes there, and in a month when the temperatures are at the lowest.  At the time I'm writing this, it is -1 degrees Fahrenheit.  Good luck staying warm, felons, particularly after your electricity is cut and any fuel for your generators (if you have any) runs out.

It'll be interesting to see how law enforcement and the government respond to this situation in the coming days.  The insurrectionists and Bundy family are clearly wanting a shoot-out to occur, a la Ruby Ridge, making them some sort of "martyr" to their extremist cause.  But I'm guessing that, if they don't fire first, they are more likely to be surrounded in a siege until they either give up or they freeze to death.  Assuming they survive, it is comforting to know that their new felon status will prevent them from legally purchasing or possessing firearms.

I'll try to keep you updated as events proceed.....

UPDATE (1/3/16):  One of the Bundy sons who is there, Ryan Bundy, says he is "willing to kill or be killed" in defense of the occupation.  In response, out of concern for the safety of children, the local schools will be closed for at least the next week.

Also, from a related article from Esquire, entitled "What's happening in Oregon is nothing more than armed sedition," the writer calls out the actions of these out-of-state militia extremists for what they are:

This is an act of armed sedition against lawful authority. That is all that it is, and that is quite enough. This is not "an expression of anti-government sentiment." .... 

These are men with guns who have declared themselves outside the law. These are men with guns who have taken something that belongs to all of us. These are traitors and thieves who got away with this dangerous nonsense once, and have been encouraged to get away with it again, and they draw their inspiration not solely from the wilder fringes of our politics, either. Ammon Bundy and his brothers should have been thrown in jail after they gathered themselves in rebellion the first time.

.