Public Land arsonists get pardons

[VikingsGuy]

Some thought charging them under Federal anti-terrorism law in order to get the elevated minimum sentence instead of more traditional criminal statutes was over the top. Even if Trump bought this argument, he should just have commuted their sentences to the 3-4 years already served. By going full pardon, they are now eligible to own firearms again, probably not a great thing given the history here.

 

[OhHeyThereBen]

Some thought charging them under Federal anti-terrorism law in order to get the elevated minimum sentence instead of more traditional criminal statutes was over the top. Even if Trump bought this argument, he should just have commuted their sentences to the 3-4 years already served. By going full pardon, they are now eligible to own firearms again, probably not a great thing given the history here.

^x2.

 

[mplane72]

Pathetic. I would really like to know who brought this to the Presidents attention and convinced him to issue pardon and not commutation. Pure pandering to the hard core base.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Pathetic. I would really like to know who brought this to the Presidents attention and convinced him to issue pardon and not commutation. Pure pandering to the hard core base.

Anti-public lands legislator Greg Walden is responsible for this. https://walden.house.gov/media-cent...nt-trump-seriously-considering-hammond-pardon

 

[Gr8bawana]

I’d say 3 & 4 years in prison and $400,000 is enough for them.

I don’t see this as something where they got off scott free.

I guess we can all see where you stand on this issue.

 

[Irrelevant]

Anti-public lands legislator Greg Walden is responsible for this. https://walden.house.gov/media-cent...nt-trump-seriously-considering-hammond-pardon

He's no Lee or Bishop: https://walden.house.gov/media-cent...ant-we-work-together-protect-our-public-lands

 

[Washington Hunter]

Being ranchers, I sure don't think it's appropriate to take away their 2nd Amendment rights, unless they have a history of committing crimes with the use of firearms. I don't believe that's the case, so maybe the full pardon was the correct thing to do.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Being ranchers, I sure don't think it's appropriate to take away their 2nd Amendment rights, unless they have a history of committing crimes with the use of firearms. I don't believe that's the case, so maybe the full pardon was the correct thing to do.

Except for numerous accounts of them threatening and firing at people with their guns... I think it's totally appropriate for them not to have firearms. Also I don't know why being ranchers should have any mitigating effect here.

 

[BrentD]

Except for numerous accounts of them threatening and firing at people with their guns... I think it's totally appropriate for them not to have firearms. Also I don't know why being ranchers should have any mitigating effect here.

And poaching

 

[mtmiller]

...well, other than those things.

 

[LopeHunter]

I'm assuming you are familiar with the full case... that they lit the fire to allegedly cover-up poaching 7 deer. This was not the first time they had committed arson, the previous time they set fires on a slope, during a fire-ban with firefighters camping on the slope above. There were numerous complaints of them menacing/shooting at hunters on public lands adjacent to their ranch, and they threatened to frame a BLM employee if said person didn't terminate the investigation on the fire.

... not sure if 3-4 years and $400,000 is even close to enough

Hot mess as you peel back the layers from "hey, a fire can get away from anyone even the forest service" then read reports about how the fires were planned and intentional to burn where it burned. Pardoning the crimes is wrong. Sends the wrong message to others that have shown they are not keen to follow the laws of the land and those leaders attract in people that are ready to damage and take ownership of your public property to make that land their private property (who thinks that is helpful for hunting access?) and escalate issues by pointing weapons towards LEO. Idiots with weapons shape the non-hunting public opinion and they will lump us in with those yahoos when we are out on public grounds hunting. Hot. Mess.

 

[noharleyyet]

He should've waited until September 2024 to flout jurisprudence...like his predecessors.

 

[Ben Lamb]

He should've waited until September 2024 to flout jurisprudence...like his predecessors.

You can't pardon people from prison, bromigo.

 

[Washington Hunter]

I don't agree with anyone having their gun rights taken away. If someone is that dangerous then they should be locked up. Telling someone they can't have a gun isn't going to prevent them from having a gun anyway. But yeah, being a rancher and not being able to have a gun? That doesn't make sense. A gun is a necessary tool for them. Were they convicted of poaching? I think not. Were they convicted of any violent crimes? No I don't think so. The government shouldn't have the ability to remove people's rights because that person MIGHT have committed some violation of the law.

 

[rogerthat]

I don't agree with anyone having their gun rights taken away. If someone is that dangerous then they should be locked up. Telling someone they can't have a gun isn't going to prevent them from having a gun anyway. But yeah, being a rancher and not being able to have a gun? That doesn't make sense. A gun is a necessary tool for them. Were they convicted of poaching? I think not. Were they convicted of any violent crimes? No I don't think so. The government shouldn't have the ability to remove people's rights because that person MIGHT have committed some violation of the law.

What does being a rancher have to do with gun rights? Idiots with guns shouldn't be able to own guns. These guys qualify as idiots. I'm a rancher in case you want to go that route again.

 

[noharleyyet]

You can't pardon people from prison, bromigo.

Pence is going to prison?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I don't agree with anyone having their gun rights taken away. If someone is that dangerous then they should be locked up. Telling someone they can't have a gun isn't going to prevent them from having a gun anyway. But yeah, being a rancher and not being able to have a gun? That doesn't make sense. A gun is a necessary tool for them. Were they convicted of poaching? I think not. Were they convicted of any violent crimes? No I don't think so. The government shouldn't have the ability to remove people's rights because that person MIGHT have committed some violation of the law.

They committed a felony...arson... and that's the law.

So you are arguing that we change that law, would I be correct that given your position that you feel if someone was a drug dealer, and accused of assault but due to lack of evidence that charge wasn't pursued but they were busted for having a kilo of heroin and then served their time they should be allowed to own a gun?

I have family members who are ranchers, a gun is not a necessity.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Pence is going to prison?

Kevin Spacey already showed us how this ends up.

 

[jabber]

I read that the government was also going to reimburse them the $400K as a goodwill jester

 

[Washington Hunter]

Funny. So some of you, if you were a rancher in eastern Oregon, you're saying you'd have no use for a gun and no desire to have one? That's crazy talk. I bet there's not one rancher in eastern Oregon who doesn't own a gun.