The militia are taking a stand for a better government. The same constitution they are supporting is the one that a "judge" appointed by our government system has ordered them to pay. If you want to occupy land/building and think you DO NOT have to pay, then you, yourself, are not supportive of the government/constitution that this country was built on. Just because you decide to "take a stand" doesn't mean that you are given everything you want.
Though they will likely fight this tooth and nail, the militia should have to pay for occupying the refuge, not as much for the space that they are occupying but for the fact that they are apparently costing the surrounding community about $60,00 to $75,000 a day. This is not right.
The rule of law applies to all individuals and organizations in the country. The occupying militia has pursued a strategy that is unambiguously illegal, and it must face legal consequences as do all other organizations and citizens. Ideological positions in no way justify or excuse criminality, whether it is perpetrated by a domestic radical group or by an international terrorist organization. No one may be permitted to take the law in their own hands in order to pursue political objectives.
Do you think ISIS have to pay the Syrian or Iraqi government for their occupation? I think not. These people on government owned land are the types of people who are against welfare and should not have to pay the government for the free rent. In 'Murica, you can do and take whatever you like and it is not stealing, it is called "I can justify myself". /s
This militia is made up of regular citizens of the United States. To ask them to pay for practicing their right to bare arms is unconstitutional. If the land is owned privately, there is nothing they legally have to do different. Until the constitution is changed or removed, the words held within still hold power.