Wildlife refuge occupation. (Photo at Oregonian website)
A federal judge on Friday greatly reduced the potential prison time Ammon and Ryan Bundy and six co-defendants face over the 41-day Oregon wildlife refuge occupation.
Judge Anna Brown wrote that the third count of the indictment — carrying of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence — is dismissed, because the crime with which they are charged, conspiracy, is not necessarily a crime of violence.
The Oregonian’s website reports that the third count carried mandatory minimum of five years in prison and a maximum of life, which may not be served concurrently but must be served consecutively with any other sentence.
Coincidentally, the Hammond father and son ranchers, whose sentences for letting controlled burns get out of hand and burn public land prompted the protest, are now serving minimum mandatory five-year sentences under a misapplied anti-terrorism law passed after the Oklahoma City federal building bombing.
Judge Brown concluded that Section 372 of the criminal code, which prohibits “conspir[ing] to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof” is not necessarily a crime of violence.
Trial is scheduled for September.
Ammon and Ryan Bundy and their father Cliven also face charges, long with 16 others, from the standoff with federal agents trying to round-up the family’s cattle two years ago. That trial is scheduled for February.
4TH ST8 
“Coincidentally, the Hammond father and son ranchers, whose sentences for letting controlled burns get out of hand and burn public land prompted the protest, are now serving minimum mandatory five-year sentences under a misapplied anti-terrorism law passed after the Oklahoma City federal building bombing.”
Untrue.
The Hammonds were not sentenced for letting controlled burns get out of hand, rather they were convicted of committing intentional acts of terrorism by a jury of their peers.
Had the Hammonds done nothing more that you describe, the jury could not have convicted them.
None of whom were ranchers. Not a jury of their peers who understood the methods of range management.
The Constitution does not require that a jury pool consist of people with the same occupation as an accused though. Otherwise Jeffry Dahmer would have demanded that 12 serial killers sit in the box.
“Serial killer” is an “occupation”
The things we learn about liberalism on this page.
If the jurors were all vegans?
Occupation
Noun
[ok-yuh-pey-shuh n]
2. any activity in which a person is engaged.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/noun
“The teacher comes when the student is ready”
oc·cu·pa·tion
ˌäkyəˈpāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
a job or profession.
“his prime occupation was as editor”
synonyms: job, profession, work, line of work, trade, employment, position, post, situation, business, career, field, métier, vocation, calling, craft
“his father’s occupation”
2.
the action, state, or period of occupying or being occupied by military force.
“the Roman occupation of Britain”
Now we get selective definitions from the liberal contingent.
Took you a while to hunt that one up.
The things we learn about liberalism on this page.
The Hammonds were railroaded by the BLM…period! The jury was a bunch of city slickers bussed in by the Feds.
Ranchers can only be judged by ranchers
It would be helpful…if the jury had some idea of the plight of ranchers in this day and age of BLM antagonism, intimidation and targeting.
Yes, then they would be able to excuse lawbreaking.
This afternoon’s Second Amendment moment:
“Authorities in Santa Monica on Sunday detained a “heavily armed” man who had plans to go to a major Los Angeles-area pride event, stirring concerns about safety in the wake of the early morning mass shooting at a gay club in Florida.
The individual, identified as James Howell, 20, told a police officer he wanted to “harm” the gay pride event, according to the Santa Monica Police Department. He appeared to be unrelated to the Orlando, Florida, shooting, said Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti.”
This evening’s Second Amendment moment:
“ROSWELL, N.M. (AP) — A New Mexico man is accused of fatally shooting his wife and four daughters in their family home and then fleeing in his car, authorities said Sunday.
Juan David Villegas-Hernandez remained at large a day after the five victims were found dead, Roswell police said.”
After being shown his “second amendment moments” are proof he jumps to conclusions (enjoying that long cold swim back from the island, nyp?) Nyp now waits for a while then tries to use a thwarted attempt at domestic terrorism in an attempt to turn a non event into another rant for more laws governing weapons ownership by the citizen militia.
This attempt falls flat due to current law and current police work being successful in thwarting the actions attempted by the “accused” criminal.
But we must thank nyp for being sure to bring this into the discussion. You see, it shows ISIS is really able to stay under the radar while simple crooks are getting caught before they act on their intentions. This shows current law is working fine while the (second amendment provided) citizen militia is a must have to combat invading forces who wish to do us real harm.
The uniquely American solution to this (very real) threat is many more guns in the hands of civilians, not fewer. And Nyp is quick to point this out on numerous occasions.
Nyp is right everyone needs to be carrying.
Thenm Nyp triples down with a domestic…..a domestic that would have happened no matter what weapon was selected for use.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/taya-kyle-pins-jesse-ventura-on-appeal.php
http://local.sltrib.com/online/finicum-bundy/