terrorist attack in Oregon!

[TLK Valentine]

I do wonder what would have happened if armed Muslims had done this.

Our friends on the Right would've called for the napalm now... as well as the rounding up and registering of every Muslim in Oregon... all 12 of them.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It is a felony to even bring a weapon inside a federal building. To knowingly or possess that weapon during the commission of a crime within a federal prison carries a penalty of five years.

Five years in federal prison... they get to emulate their inspiration...

 

[smaneck]

Five years in federal prison... they get to emulate their inspiration...

I do not want this affair to end violently but I definitely want these guys to pay the full penalty for what they have done. As much as we've poked fun at these guys, they are dangerous, every last one of them.

 

[JGG]

Is this still going on? Is there an update on who's winning their Dungeons & Dragons game?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It is a felony to even bring a weapon inside a federal building. To knowingly or possess that weapon during the commission of a crime within a federal prison carries a penalty of five years.

When you say "federal building", what are you referring to?

Federal buildings like courthouses, etc... are off limits, however, if where they're at is considered a park or wildlife refuge, then it's possible that they haven't broken any laws as of yet (at least as far as carrying firearms is concerned)

From the FAQ section of the official National Parks Service website (nps.gov)
Q. Why do people have firearms in national parks – they never did before?

A. In most national parks, only authorized law enforcement officials have been allowed to carry firearms, but a 2009 federal law made national parks – and national wildlife refuges – generally subject to applicable federal, state, and local firearms laws.

Unless, they've entered a structure that has the appropriate signage forbidding them...then that's another story.

Q. Can I take a firearm anywhere I go in the park?

A. No. Federal law prohibits firearms in “federal facilities,” which are generally defined as federally-owned or -leased buildings where federal employees work on a regular basis. Buildings that meet this definition will have signs posted at public entrances noting the prohibition on firearms.

I was trying to see if I could find any pictures of the building to see if there was signage posted, but nothing that zooms in enough to the door showed up in the search results.

 

[Belk]

Is this still going on? Is there an update on who's winning their Dungeons & Dragons game?

Don't be silly. These are conservative Mormons. D&D is of the devil. They are playing Uno.

 

[smaneck]

The County Sheriff met with these guys and tried to mediate a solution allowing them to peaceably return home. But Bundy says the gunmen won't leave until the land is turned over to local authorities. That's a bit of a change in tune. Earlier he was saying the land should be turned over to its rightful owner, but then the tribal chief of the Burns Paiute Tribe spoke up and said it's theirs and that the gunmen are desecrating it. What I don't understand is why the authorities are still allowing supplies to go in and out of there. I don't want to see a shootout, but we should not be coddling these people either.

 

[brinny]

When you say "federal building", what are you referring to?

Federal buildings like courthouses, etc... are off limits, however, if where they're at is considered a park or wildlife refuge, then it's possible that they haven't broken any laws as of yet (at least as far as carrying firearms is concerned)

From the FAQ section of the official National Parks Service website (nps.gov)
Q. Why do people have firearms in national parks – they never did before?

A. In most national parks, only authorized law enforcement officials have been allowed to carry firearms, but a 2009 federal law made national parks – and national wildlife refuges – generally subject to applicable federal, state, and local firearms laws.

Unless, they've entered a structure that has the appropriate signage forbidding them...then that's another story.

Q. Can I take a firearm anywhere I go in the park?

A. No. Federal law prohibits firearms in “federal facilities,” which are generally defined as federally-owned or -leased buildings where federal employees work on a regular basis. Buildings that meet this definition will have signs posted at public entrances noting the prohibition on firearms.

I was trying to see if I could find any pictures of the building to see if there was signage posted, but nothing that zooms in enough to the door showed up in the search results.

Thank you.

 

[smaneck]

When you say "federal building", what are you referring to?

Federal buildings like courthouses, etc... are off limits

The penalty for federal courthouses is twice that for other federal buildings but the only exception to not bringing arms into a federal building is in cases where arms are brought into a "Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes." These weapons were not brought in for a 'lawful purpose.'

From the FAQ section of the official National Parks Service website (nps.gov)
Q. Why do people have firearms in national parks – they never did before?

A. In most national parks, only authorized law enforcement officials have been allowed to carry firearms, but a 2009 federal law made national parks – and national wildlife refuges – generally subject to applicable federal, state, and local firearms laws.

That refers to the park, not the federal building.

Q. Can I take a firearm anywhere I go in the park?

A. No. Federal law prohibits firearms in “federal facilities,” which are generally defined as federally-owned or -leased buildings where federal employees work on a regular basis. Buildings that meet this definition will have signs posted at public entrances noting the prohibition on firearms.

I think that is pretty clear. We know the building is a federal facility and that federal employees work there on a regular basis.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The penalty for federal courthouses is twice that for other federal buildings but the only exception to not bringing arms into a federal building is in cases where arms are brought into a "Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes." These weapons were not brought in for a 'lawful purpose.'

That refers to the park, not the federal building.

I think that is pretty clear. We know the building is a federal facility and that federal employees work there on a regular basis.

Yes, but to know whether or not the building meets the guidelines prescribed in the law, it's on the facility manager (in this case, the national parks service) to place the appropriate signage up in accordance with the law.

Like I said before, maybe they do have the appropriate signage in place, but I haven't been able to see a picture to confirm one way or the other.

And there are exemptions in place...for example
In many cases, you cannot carry a concealed weapon into park lodges and cabins. However, restrooms are exempt; you may enter the building to use the restroom with a concealed weapon, but you must leave the weapon outside if you use the building for any other purpose.


So even for the buildings that are marked, there are exemptions in place...obviously these jokers aren't in there to go to the bathroom, I was just simply making the point that being in a federally owned building with your firearm doesn't automatically make you a criminal.

Per the 2009-2010 law change that took effect, the spokesman for the National Parks service (Barna, at the time) stated that it is the government's responsibility to 'post signs at the buildings that are still off limits to firearms'.

Therefore, like I said earlier...it's all about the signage as it pertains specifically to the matter of National Parks.

 

[TLK Valentine]

When you say "federal building", what are you referring to?

Any building owned and operated by the federal government.

Unless, they've entered a structure that has the appropriate signage forbidding them...then that's another story.

Well, since they won't let anyone else get near the buiding they've hijacked, we'll have to wait and see.

Q. Can I take a firearm anywhere I go in the park?

A. No. Federal law prohibits firearms in “federal facilities,” which are generally defined as federally-owned or -leased buildings where federal employees work on a regular basis. Buildings that meet this definition will have signs posted at public entrances noting the prohibition on firearms.

I was trying to see if I could find any pictures of the building to see if there was signage posted, but nothing that zooms in enough to the door showed up in the search results.

Federal employees work in the facility on a regular basis...

 

[smaneck]

Yes, but to know whether or not the building meets the guidelines prescribed in the law, it's on the facility manager (in this case, the national parks service) to place the appropriate signage up in accordance with the law.

Given that federal employees work there on a regular basis there is no reason to think it doesn't. You're belief is based on an unproven assumption that the facility manager might not have done what he was required to do, and you have no evidence of that.

In many cases, you cannot carry a concealed weapon into park lodges and cabins. However, restrooms are exempt; you may enter the building to use the restroom with a concealed weapon, but you must leave the weapon outside if you use the building for any other purpose. So even for the buildings that are marked, there are exemptions in place...obviously these jokers aren't in there to go to the bathroom, I was just simply making the point that being in a federally owned building with your firearm doesn't automatically make you a criminal.

This is nonsense. They carried guns inside that building for criminal purposes.

Per the 2009-2010 law change that took effect, the spokesman for the National Parks service (Barna, at the time) stated that it is the government's responsibility to 'post signs at the buildings that are still off limits to firearms'.

Yeah, and there is no evidence that the government failed to do its duty in this case. The fact that these gunmen don't furnish you with a picture of that sign, proves nothing.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Given that federal employees work there on a regular basis there is no reason to think it doesn't. You're belief is based on an unproven assumption that the facility manager might not have done what he was required to do, and you have no evidence of that.

Ambiguity in legal scenarios favors the citizen...but I openly acknowledged that I couldn't find any pictures one way or the other to see if signage was posted.

This is nonsense. They carried guns inside that building for criminal purposes.

I openly stated that in my post, did you read that part?
Here was my statement: obviously these jokers aren't in there to go to the bathroom, I was just simply making the point that being in a federally owned building with your firearm doesn't automatically make you a criminal.

Yeah, and there is no evidence that the government failed to do its duty in this case. The fact that these gunmen don't furnish you with a picture of that sign, proves nothing

Correct, I clearly stated that there was no pictures showing one way or the other whether or not the building had gun-busters signs posted.

I don't know why you're getting hostile with me, I'm not taking their side...I'm simply pointing out that with the way the law is written pertaining to parks, we don't know yet if they're guilty of a federal crime.

 

[smaneck]

Ambiguity in legal scenarios favors the citizen...but I openly acknowledged that I couldn't find any pictures one way or the other to see if signage was posted.

The only ambiguity here is in your imagining that federal employees might not have done what they were legally required to do, and you have no evidence for that.

I don't know why you're getting hostile with me, I'm not taking their side...I'm simply pointing out that with the way the law is written pertaining to parks, we don't know yet if they're guilty of a federal crime.

I'm not hostile, I'm just frustrated that you are making up stuff to suggest they might not be criminals.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Any building owned and operated by the federal government.

Well, since they won't let anyone else get near the buiding they've hijacked, we'll have to wait and see.

Federal employees work in the facility on a regular basis...

...but as noted before, the "any building owned by the government" is not an accurate assessment in respect to facilities within parks and wildlife refuges as per the law. In the case of parks, the responsibility is on the government to post signs on the buildings that are applicable. It's not like schools & courthouses where it's 100% banned whether there are signs or not.

Again, it's very possible that there were signs, and these jokers just ignored them and strolled right in...in which case, they could/should be charged with the crime.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The only ambiguity here is in your imagining that federal employees might not have done what they were legally required to do, and you have no evidence for that.

I'm not hostile, I'm just frustrated that you are making up stuff to suggest they might not be criminals.

I'm not suggesting or saying that federal employees neglected their job, I'm simply saying "we don't know"...and we don't. You or I aren't standing next to the building right now. Neither of us has evidence of whether there are or aren't signs on that particular structure out in Oregon.

I'm not making things up, I'm explaining very real possibilities. There are buildings within national parks that don't have the signs up...some do, some don't...and it's based on a number of factors. I've spent enough time in Cuyahoga Valley National park (doing photography stuff) to know that first hand. There are definitely building that don't have the signs up (meaning, the ban isn't applicable to that building). It's not an either or sort of thing...it could very well be a case the the signage wasn't applicable for some reason, and therefore no sign was posted (meaning that the employees didn't neglect their job, it was just a case where the signage wasn't applicable)

It seems as if you're unwilling to consider any other possibility besides "these scum intentionally & knowingly violated federal law"

 

[smaneck]

I'm not making things up, I'm explaining very real possibilities. There are buildings within national parks that don't have the signs up...some do, some don't...and it's based on a number of factors. I've spent enough time in Cuyahoga Valley National park (doing photography stuff) to know that first hand.

The main building doesn't have that sign up? Because that is the building these gunmen took over.

It's not an either or sort of thing...it could very well be a case the the signage wasn't applicable for some reason

According to the law the only reason that sign wouldn't be applicable would be if federal employees did not use that building on a regular basis, whereas we know they did.

It seems as if you're unwilling to consider any other possibility besides "these scum intentionally & knowingly violated federal law"

What I happen to know is that these gunmen don't recognize the legitimacy of federal law. Check out the facebook pages of these guys, they admit as much.

 

[jenny1972]

Oh, that won't be necessary until the promised "self-defense" starts.

so if someone starts shooting at you you dont have a right to protect your life?

 

[Cearbhall]

so if someone starts shooting at you you dont have a right to protect your life?

Of course you do. If the feds choose to go in and these rebels start shooting at them, as they've said they will do, the police or special forces or whoever will be justified in returning fire. That's the main reason why they aren't going in: they don't want to have to kill these guys. It's not like they have hostages, so it doesn't seem worth it.

 

[smaneck]

so if someone starts shooting at you you dont have a right to protect your life?

When you are in the commission of crime, you don't. If that were the case no bank robber could be charged with murder when he kills the security guard (well, he was shooting at me!) The right move at that point is to surrender so you don't get shot. And by the way there would have been no question of getting short if they hadn't gone in armed in the first place. If they just wanted a peaceful protest they would have done what protesters trying to get rid of nuclear facilities do. Leave the deadly weapons at home and go chain yourself to something.