150 Armed Militia take over Oregon Federal Building

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • vmax

    TGT Addict
    TGT Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Apr 15, 2013
    18,611
    96
    This is a clip of BLM FEDS bragging about taking private land from two WW2 vets

     
    Last edited:

    vmax

    TGT Addict
    TGT Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Apr 15, 2013
    18,611
    96
    The US Constitution says that the feds can only own land in two circumstances
    Ten square miles in Washington DC and for the use of military forts and ports in the states with the permission of the state's

    The rest of it is illegal folks
     

    TheDan

    deplorable malcontent scofflaw
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Nov 11, 2008
    29,122
    96
    Austin - Rockdale
    Had another thought on the legality... If the land became part of the state's when it was grated statehood, did the state then turn around and grant the land back to the federal government? If so, was that even legal for them to do? I know that the wildlife refuge was created via executive order from Teddy Roosevelt, but apparently the land was already "owned" by the federal government at that time. How did they come to this ownership when it should have belonged to Oregon?
     

    breakingcontact

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Oct 16, 2012
    18,297
    31
    Indianapolis
    Had another thought on the legality... If the land became part of the state's when it was grated statehood, did the state then turn around and grant the land back to the federal government? If so, was that even legal for them to do? I know that the wildlife refuge was created via executive order from Teddy Roosevelt, but apparently the land was already "owned" by the federal government at that time. How did they come to this ownership when it should have belonged to Oregon?
    I might have read it was reservation land.
     

    breakingcontact

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Oct 16, 2012
    18,297
    31
    Indianapolis
    If that's the case then neither Oregon or the Feds owned it, and Teddy's EO would have been illegal.
    I'd have to study the maps more but it looks like the Paiute Indians were kicked off their land and their reservation "discontinued" in the 1870s by the federal government when the Paiute joined in an Indian war against the fed gov with another tribe.
     

    zincwarrior

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 27, 2010
    4,775
    66
    Texas, land of Tex-Mex
    The same thing might be said about some tea that was spilled into a harbor in Boston.
    Only by an idiot.

    At its most basic level, just because someone may dispute that you have full color of title to property, does not mean that someone-with no relation to anyone in the dispute- can then trespass on the property. Thats just an asinine concept. In essence if some random jerk says Shinnosuke doesn't own his house, Zincwarrior can't kick in the door, build a fire in your living room and start cooking up hotdogs.


    At best it would belong to the previous owners-the natives who lived there. As it would not be part of the US they should be free and clear to go murderize the militia nuts, and scalp them Hollywood style.

    Now that I think about it, well that sounds pretty fitting.
     
    Last edited:

    shinnosuke

    Active Member
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Dec 15, 2015
    382
    1
    San Antonio
    Only by an idiot.

    At its most basic level, just because someone may dispute that you have full color of title to property, does not mean that someone-with no relation to anyone in the dispute- can then trespass on the property. Thats just an asinine concept. In essence if some random jerk says Shinnosuke doesn't own his house, Zincwarrior can't kick in the door, build a fire in your living room and start cooking up hotdogs.


    At best it would belong to the previous owners-the natives who lived there. As it would not be part of the US they should be free and clear to go murderize the militia nuts, and scalp them Hollywood style.

    Now that I think about it, well that sounds pretty fitting.

    Normalcy bias...such a difficult thing to overcome.
     

    zincwarrior

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 27, 2010
    4,775
    66
    Texas, land of Tex-Mex
    Its called chain of title. Neither the militia nutbags nor the original arsonists had it. They have no right to do anything on that park property, just as I have no right to walk into some random stranger's house and drink all their coffee.
     
    Top Bottom