Whats going on in Oregon?

You're not helping the "gun nut" craze.

 

is that a legal determination? doesnt that require a license? LOL


actually, Im pretty sure this is the root of all confusion. legal vs lawful. we either learn what is true for ourselves or rely on others to make that determination for us.

 

They had permission for the first burn from the forestry service.

Second burn was a back burn to protect their own property from an active wildfire since the federal government has decided that prescribed burns are bad, clearing down timber is bad, grazing is bad, etc.

 

It is what it is.

 

And that folks is why we love the Buckwild.

 

Go back a little further and evidence suggests that Northern European hunters were in North America before the downtrodden "native" Americans, who are believed to have migrated across from Siberia. For the most part, everyone came from somewhere else.

 

Meanwhile, we know for sure that the natives were there when Whitey sailed from Europe.

 

True. But then the English whitey chased off the Spanish whitey and the French whitey (except for Canuckistan). Wait...didn't French whitey simply sell off their interests? Anyway, then the newly minted North American whitey chased off the English whitey and became US whitey.

 

Louisiana was sold off to fight Russia (IIRC)

The British took control of the canuck side of things a wee bit later.


The northern european hunter thing was disproven recently, hell if I can find the link to that.

 

The stupid in here has gotten epic.

There are actual laws regarding wildfires. They actually make sense to those of us that are professionals. They make sense to almost all land stewards i have dealt with in 3o years in fire as well.

Illegal firing is a criminal offense. Setting a backfire with no operational coordination qualifies -every time!- as an illegal firing.

A poor execution of an authorized prescribed fire (by govt or not) is not an illegal act, but is subject to civil tort. You want to cite an escaped fire by government that didn't result in compensation for loss? Wildfires (the putative agent directing the mitigation by Rx) do not have any such <cough> benefits.

Private landowners throughout the west can and do execute Rx fires without being jailed. Like most things, it involves following the rule of law.

I bet you read that in the internet, huh? Show me a copy of the burn permit, because that is the only manner in which "permission" is granted by ODF for Rx fire on private land.

 

Which ones don't qualify as Whitey?

 

Anyone with rhythm.

 

or ability to dunk a basketball. Whitey can't jump. There's a bad movie that proves it.

 

But for a judge to redo the sentence not only after it was enacted but after it was served seems like a variant of double jeopardy. Add in the government wants their land and it sounds like coercion.

The first sentence is certainly debatable though it seems sounds. The government coming around for a redo seems slimy at best.

 

this is a bit of an oversimplification, but there's a basic legal construct that a number of people in this thread don't seem to understand. i don't mean to pick on you specifically, but you're the last one to post...

either party (defendent, or in this case, the gov't... with some limitations) can appeal the ruling of the first court to hear the case. the element of this case that was appealed was the sentence. that is to say, the next higher court examined the first ruling and found the originally imposed sentence too lenient because the lower court hadn't properly applied the sentencing requirements (mandatory minimums, y'all). this isn't double jeopardy, it's the normal process of the court system... the lower court judge got it wrong.

in the end, the Hammonds aren't even a part of what's going on in Oregon anymore anyway.

 

http://chattanoogabystander.com/2016/01/05/soddy-daisy-milita-seize-coolidge-park-restrooms/

Another "movement"

 

Oregon doesn't actually issue burn permits. DEQ manages burn regulations for the state and their website states that they do not issue permits, require you to check with your local fire district for burn days. Now open field burning is regulated by DOA but only in the Willamete Valley, all other open field burning still falls under DEQ and is allowed pretty much throughout the state based on fire safety restrictions.

 

Oregon Dept. of Forestry most definitely does issue burn permits, and you were the one claiming that ODF had given "permission". DEQ regulates allowable burn days based on air quality and atmospheric conditions for areas not under ODF control (based on a unique definition of forestland, which this area clearly doesn't meet).
Open burning during declared fire season in areas not forested is regulated by local fire departments and is only allowable on DEQ declared "burn days". Is that who you mean gave permission?

Like most things, Oregon is ahead of the curve on progressive land management compared to most other western states, making Rx fire easier to execute. Still doesn't mean you can't get burned by doing it unlawfully.

 

So IF there were actually a Burn Permit issued...do you think it would still exist today...after clearly the BLM is on a crusade to get the Hammonds>?

 

Department of forestry provides permits for slash burns in Harney county. DEQ refers residents to local fire protection agency which requires permission. Permission in that district could be simple a call (which was done). Burns fire department doesn't actually specify anything that is needed to burn. Only thing they specify around fire protection is an application for annual contract to receive fire protection services for them for a fee outside city limits.

The family was not tried for the actual burn, they were tried for setting fire to government land. The original burn was not the issue. of course when looking at the case, the fire was simple a tool for the BLM to finish what they had started back in the 60's. Talk about a corrupt government agency. It's odd how the BLM keeps coming up in these kind of issues out west that end in groups of ranchers standing up to them? If it was a single incident maybe it could be looked over. But it's time and time again across multiple states throughout the west.

Funny how after the father and son were arrested, the initial judge actually released the two and said there wasn't sufficient evidence for trial (on the very next day). Then the terrorist charges came up moving to a different level of crime and jurisdiction.