In Oregon, Law Enforcement Faces Dilemma in Confronting Armed Group

By KIRK JOHNSON, ERIK ECKHOLM and RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA

The small band of antigovernment protesters who took over a group of federal buildings in rural Oregon said Monday that they aimed “to restore and defend the Constitution,” in particular the rights of ranchers, and set off a national movement, forcing the federal government to release its hold on vast tracts of Western land.

The federal government, for its part, appeared content, for now, to monitor the situation and wait out the protesters.

The F.B.I. said in a statement that while state and local agencies would remain involved in the episode in rural Harney County, the bureau would take the lead. The law enforcement presence in the area appeared to be minimal, and no effort was made to keep the occupiers of buildings at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge from coming and going as they pleased.

“Due to safety considerations for both those inside the refuge as well as the law enforcement officers involved,” the F.B.I. said, “we will not be releasing any specifics with regards to the law enforcement response.”

Federal officials may be mindful of past clashes with people who did not recognize government authority that ended in bloodshed — like those at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992, and Waco, Tex., in 1993 — that became rallying cries for antigovernment militants, including self-styled militias. In contrast, the government retreated from the 2014 confrontation with Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher, when supporters rallied around him and threatened a gun battle with federal officials. For more than two decades, Mr. Bundy has refused to pay fees for grazing his livestock on federal land, becoming a symbol of resistance to people who object to federal control of vast acreage in the West. At a news conference with a handful of the occupiers and their supporters, one of the leaders, Ammon Bundy — a son of Cliven Bundy — expressed confidence that the government would not risk a confrontation. Asked how the group would respond if the government tried to remove them forcibly, he said, “We do not believe they will do that.” Law enforcement officials ”have reached out to individuals that we are closely affiliated with, and they have gave messages to us,” he said. “They do not intend to come up on us.” Officials in Washington played down the situation, describing the Justice Department and other agencies as being in a kind of wait-and-see mode. While President Obama is “certainly aware” of the situation, said Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman, it is a “local law enforcement matter” to which the president has not given much thought. The incident added to a fierce debate on social media, with some people offering support to the antigovernment group, and others arguing that if the people involved had not been white, they would have been dealt with harshly. Among the armed protesters involved in occupying the buildings at the refuge, south of here, those who have publicly identified themselves are from outside the area. Even local people and groups who sympathize with their aims have questioned their methods, and asked whether Harney County is being used by outsiders.

Another group dedicated to opposing what it calls federal overreach, the Three Percenters Club Oregon, said of the takeover on its Facebook page, “These actions destroy everything that the Patriot community has been working toward and show the Patriots in a negative light again.”

Some members of Mr. Bundy’s group have claimed that as many as 100 people are involved in the armed takeover of the buildings, but the real figure appears to be much smaller; Mr. Bundy declined to give a number. But, calling themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom — a name Mr. Bundy said they had adopted only because reporters kept asking what their group was called — they claimed a mission as grand as their numbers are small.

They contend that under the Constitution, the federal government can own only a small amount of land for very limited purposes, which do not include wildlife refuges, and can acquire it only with a state’s consent, by paying the state for it. The courts have not agreed.

What would persuade the protesters to leave, Mr. Bundy said, is “for the federal government to give up its unconstitutional presence in this county.”

In a forum here last month, Mr. Bundy was more explicit about wanting to start a national movement. “We can restore the Constitution back to this county, and it can be an example to all the other counties across this nation,” he told local residents. “The people of this country will come to you and protect you if you will make the right stand.” At a glance, the stakes here would appear to be low. On Saturday, the armed group took control of a small group of unoccupied structures, miles from any town, in the dead of winter. But Heidi Beirich, the director of intelligence with the Southern Poverty Law Center who oversees the center’s tracking of extremist groups, said that there was a danger to under-reaction, and that the last Bundy standoff set a bad precedent. “They were emboldened by their ability to run federal officials off at the point of a gun,” Ms. Beirich said. “Now, a year and half later, there have been no prosecutions whatsoever. Pointing a gun at a federal officer is a crime.” The lesson, she said, is that “you can beat the federal government, you can do what you want with federal lands and you won’t be punished.”

A crucial lesson of Waco and Ruby Ridge “it to avoid an armed confrontation at all costs,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director for the Police Executive Research Forum, which studies law enforcement policies. “Where the situation is contained and you can negotiate, there should be no rush to move in.”

The clash stems, indirectly, from the arson convictions of two local ranchers, Dwight L. Hammond and his son Steven D. Hammond, who set fires that burned federal lands. The ranchers said they were fighting wildfires and invasive vegetation, while federal officials said they were covering up poaching on federal land.

This is a sparsely populated region — heavily dependent on ranching and logging — where the federal government owns much of the land. Such areas are common in the West, with frequent conflicts between federal officials who control access to the land and people who want greater freedom to use it.

The Hammonds served prison sentences and were released, but a federal court ruled that they were improperly sentenced, and ordered them to serve more time. They were expected to surrender to federal authorities on Monday.

The case became a cause célèbre for antigovernment groups, including those calling themselves militias, who contend that the federal government has usurped powers that belong to people and the states. A protest was held here in support of the Hammonds, and some of the protesters broke away and occupied the wildlife refuge buildings.

The Hammonds have distanced themselves from the group and its actions, as have other local residents.

“This county isn’t supportive of what’s being done here at all,” said Dan Nichols, a county commissioner who is a neighbor of the Hammond family. “Once again, it’s a bunch of those who live without the county telling us what we need to do, how we need to be doing it and the repercussions if we don’t.”

In a statement captured on video, Ammon Bundy said Sunday that his group was “prepared to be out here for as long as need be” and would leave only when the people of Harney County “can use these lands as free men.”