Here is a video by Stefan Molyneux
This individual lays out a lot of the details of the situation and facts of the courtroom for our review.
Upfront, although not double jeopardy, this is very much a case of extreme federal leveraging of pressure on the Hammond family and a case of using anti-terrorism laws to unduly punish American citizens for common and necessary private ranching practices.
The original sentencing, by the now retired judge, was a very fair and informed sentence. The second sentence is clearly a case of using the laws on private ranchers and citizens in order to add undue pressure and personal struggle to the family.
This is a situation of broad overarching Federal Laws being applied in a situation and locality they are not suited to.
Please watch, read, and learn as much as you can about this situation.
In this post, I shall comment on one of the oddest debates to resurface in recent years: the gun control debate. On one hand, it’s re-emergence is not surprising: we are all concerned about increasing our safety and well-being, which proponents of gun control claim their ideas will accomplish. But, the odd thing about this debate is that we have already seen gun control fail abominably; so, what’s the point of trying again to convince us of its merits? Convincing people of the merits of gun control is like trying to convince people of the merits of a zeppelin. A zeppelin works fine until–like in the case of the Hindenburg–a tiny spark sets all its hydrogen gas ablaze and sends all the crew and passengers falling to the certain death. Much better to stick with helium filled blimps!
I used to follow the gun control debate religiously in the 90’s and early 2000’s until it died at some point in the Bush years. On one side, advocates of “reasonable firearms laws” wished to remove any gun they deemed dangerous from the hands of civilians through incremental restrictions and confiscations, such as the Assault Weapons Ban (really semiautomatic rifle ban). These gun control supporters wished all modern firearms in the hands of the police and the military. Here, I wish to point out that dictators throughout history have divested their subjects of arms so that they might more easily control them. The British government had people arguing for disarming American colonists before the Revolutionary War. After this country was formed, we have the example of the corrupt Tammany Hall of New York City trying to disarm its residents so that gangs owned by the politicians might have an easier time terrorizing their victims. This state of affairs, law-abiding citizens at the mercy of unscrupulous politicians and nefarious criminals, is where gun control eventually leads–even though proponents of gun control think removing guns will reduce crime in much the same way as Prohibitionists thought banning liquor would help public morals.