Chances are you’ve heard of the “protest” currently underway in Oregon involving a couple dozen ranchers armed with guns insisting on the end of “government tyranny” by “any means necessary.” Well for starters they’re not just protestors, they’re terrorists–and here’s why.

Terrorism, by definition, is the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal. Therefore, the armed anti-government occupation of a wildlife refuge building clearly qualifies.

Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s try to decode the motivation behind this vague showdown.

Where are they?

The militants are holed up at the HQ building of Oregon’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which is operated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The 187,000 acre refuge is known for its extensive marshland and large bird populations. Since the occupation, the facility has been closed to the public until “further notice.”

Who are they?

The ring leader of the group is Ammon Bundy, the 40-year-old son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who had his own armed confrontation with the federal government over grazing rights in 2014. The rest of the group is comprised of mostly male protestors and militia members, all of whom are presumably armed and claim they’re willing to defend themselves if forced is used against them. Reporters estimate there are over 100 members.

Who the Hell is Ammon Bundy, the Oregon Militia Ringleader? https://t.co/mYIAL77vOH #OregonUnderAttack pic.twitter.com/edcGe54B6R

— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) January 3, 2016

What do they want?

Well this is where it starts to get a little confusing.

When a CNN reporter asked Bundy what the purpose of the occupation was, he responded with a series of vague statements, claiming he wants the “government to abide by the constitution” and “play by the rules.”

But when you delve a little bit deeper, everything seems to come back to the Hammond family and their legal troubles.

Who are the Hammonds?

Dwight Jr. and Steven Hammond are local father and son ranchers, who were convicted of setting fire to over 130 acres of land in 2001 and 2006, supposedly to cover up illegal deer poaching on federal land. The Hammonds, however, claim the fires were meant to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property against wildfires.

They were convicted three years ago and already paid $400,000 in fines and served time–the father three months and the son one year. But the ranchers are mad because the pair was sentenced again and ordered to turn themselves in Monday afternoon.

Why were they sentenced twice?

According to Rolling Stone, the pair was sentenced under a law known as the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This law requires a five year minimum sentence for individuals who “maliciously damage or destroy” by fire any property owned by the United States.

How will this end?

That is the big question on everyone’s mind.

Bundy himself doesn’t even seem to have a clear set of demands or exit strategy for the occupation. So far most news organizations covering the standoff are wary even to call  it “domestic terrorism,” and the federal government hasn’t made any visible moves to dispel or arrest the militants.

The anti-government agenda has also already turned into campaign fodder among the crowd of Republican presidential candidates, with some calling for an end to the “lawlessness,” while others lend their sympathy. Either way it will be important to see how the government reacts if it continues, especially on the heels of President Obama’s proposed upcoming gun control executive orders.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Terrorists, Not Protestors: What’s Going on with the Oregon Militia Standoff? appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump was the latest 2016 presidential hopeful to take to the stage at 30 Rock last night, when he hosted the newest episode of “Saturday Night Live.” While there may have been some lukewarm laughs inside the studio, Trump’s appearance sparked plenty of protests outside.

SNL gave Donald Trump only roughly 12 minutes of airtime (possibly in recognition of the “equal opportunity” time rule that would require NBC to give free time to the other candidates as well.) But he spent that time on an opening monologue, his own rendition of Drake’s “Hotline Bling” video, and was the recipient of some major barbs on the “Weekend Update” sketch. But, one of the most noteworthy moments was when Larry David, who reprised his role as Bernie Sanders, yelled “Trump’s a racist!” In the (clearly scripted) subsequent exchange, David then explained “I heard they’d give me $5,000.”

Larry David couldn’t miss this opportunity. #SNLhttps://t.co/CQ3y2BxUtK

— Saturday Night Live (@nbcsnl) November 8, 2015

The “they” that David was referring to were the protesters, who disagreed strongly with NBC’s decision to have Trump host the show. The protestors, who mostly take issue with Trump’s previous comments on immigrants, had previously tried to push NBC to “Dump Trump” and not allow him onto the show. When they were unsuccessful, they took to the streets outside the NBC studios. DeportRacism.com, which is a site involved in the protests, also offered $5000 to anyone willing to interrupt Trump’s performance–hence David’s interruption.

The protestors outside chanted slogans like “Hey hey, ho ho, racism has got to go!” It’s estimated that roughly 200 people showed up to protest. They also took to social media with hashtags like #DumpTrump and #RacismIsntFunny.

Our gratitude to the folks outside @rockcenternyc #solidarity #DumpTrumpOnSNL #RacismIsntFunny pic.twitter.com/jKKL9yHh7s

— Jose Antonio Vargas (@joseiswriting) November 8, 2015

Live, from New York, it’s racism and bigotry! #DumpTrump #RacismIsntFunny — Jan Schakowsky (@janschakowsky) November 8, 2015

“Racism isn’t funny. It’s lazy and it’s cheap.” Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) urges SNL to #DumpTrump: https://t.co/9TzcWdUPQu — AJ+ (@ajplus) November 6, 2015

The protestors made an important point, but Trump did end up taking the stage at “Saturday Night Live” after all. While last night garnered SNL its highest ratings in years, most critics have panned the episode overall. But whether or not Trump’s appearance will affect his still-high poll numbers will have to be seen. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump Hosts SNL, Despite Protests appeared first on Law Street.

It has now become virtually physically impossible to get through the day without hearing a news story about Donald Trump making someone mad. But the latest story to come out of The Donald’s terrifyingly successful attempt at a 2016 run might be a bit more threatening than just angry onlookers–it’s a lawsuit. A group of protesters are suing Trump, after they claim they were attacked by his security team.

The five protesters who are plaintiffs in the recently-filed case are, in their own words, “human rights activists of Mexican origin.” The protesters were there to speak out against Trump’s much-maligned rhetoric about immigrants. They were holding up signs outside of an event last Thursday in New York at Trump Tower in which they riffed off Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again.” Instead, they held signs that read “Make America Racist Again.” Trump’s director of security and long-time guard, Keith Schiller, grabbed the sign from a protester. That protester, named Efrain Galicia, ran after Schiller to try and grab the sign back, and started pulling at it. It was at that point that Schiller turned around and hit Galicia. Here’s a video of the altercation:

It’s in this light that Galicia and his fellow protesters are suing, alleging violence, theft of property, and interference with political speech. They’re also seeking an injunction that would keep members of Trump’s security team from interfering with protesters at various events. Overall, they’re framing their case at least in part from a public free speech angle.

Galicia’s lawyer Benjamin Dictor told New York Daily News:

The video in a sense speaks for itself. The actions were just exceedingly aggressive especially given the fact that demonstrators were on a public sidewalk speaking out about issues of public concern.

Dictor also stated:

There’s obviously a larger issue at play here, which is individuals from the community speaking out in public about issues of public concern in a public space. In the most public of spaces on the most public of issues.

Named in the lawsuit are Schiller, the rest of Trump’s organization, and Trump himself. They aren’t going down without a fight though–in the immediate aftermath of the incident, a spokesman from Trump’s campaign claimed that the protesters were causing disturbances on the sidewalk and had committed violence against Trump’s security team themselves. There has been talk that Trump’s team might actually sue the protesters as well.

This scuffle and resulting lawsuit really don’t come as a surprise after many of Trump’s recent comments have sparked calls for protests. As this election cycle continues to heat up, this may not be the only altercation we see between Trump’s security and protesters that we see.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump Sued by Protesters Who Scuffled With His Security Team appeared first on Law Street.