What happens when one law says that you can and the other law says that you can’t? Well, let’s enter the world of Perplexity and see what we can find.
To begin, we have to look at Count II of the Superseding Indictment. In the Indictment, it reads like this:
(Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities)
(18 U.S.C. §§ 930(b) and 2)
On or about January 2, 2016, and continuing through February 12, 2016,
in the District of Oregon, defendants [lists names of Defendants], and
aided and abetted by each other and by others known and unknown to the
grand jury, did knowingly possess or cause to be present a firearm or dangerous weapon in a federal facility located at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and counseled, commanded, induced and procured the commission thereof, with the intent that the firearm or dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, to wit: 18 U.S.C. § 372, Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 930(b) and 2.
The first cited statute, 18 US Code §930(b) reads:
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime,
knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous
weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
More @ Outpost of Freedom
The underling federal crime was the OCCUPATION of federal property with intent to commit ___ federal crimes. That made everything else possible in the warrant. This act was not the unjust persecution of the innocent. It was a group hell bent on deliberately committing a felony. They were bone stupid to the very end.
ReplyDeleteSo, let’s recap what we have learned.
DeleteThe federal government, in 18 US Code §930, says that firearms were in Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and were intended to be used in a crime, though no crime was committed, and the government is relying on their belief of the intentions of those who intended only to defend their lives. All of the acceptable under Oregon Revised Statutes, which the government deferred to in their brochure. Now, if the government didn’t mean what they said in the brochure, then it is nothing more than a trap in which to ensnare people, if the government really wants to ensnare someone. But, if that is the case, then the dishonesty of the government is far more egregious than the actions of people that occupied the Refuge (I would suggest “Three Felonies a Day“, by Harvey Silverglate).
I know that the federal government believes that federal law trumps state law. This doesn’t account for the fact that often state law is contrary to federal law (See Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws), but states continue to pass such laws, as it is not contrary to the Constitution. So, if the federal government specifically acquiesces to state law, can they come back, later, and decide that it was okay for them to lie to people?
To me, having covered the misdeeds of government for over two decades, I am not surprised that they have done so. It is wrong for them to assert an undue and unconstitutional authority over both the people and the states. And, as more and more people realize this, the more likely we will see a positive change.