And the moment they point that rifle at someone, they will have met the criteria for domestic terrorism as defined by the U.S. federal code.
They didnât just bring weapons. They threatened to use them on anyone who attempts to enforce the law by arresting or removing the âprotesters.â Again, how is that any different than threatening to set off a bomb if Feds try to retake the building?
3 Likes
Well the Bundyâs live in a pre 9/11 world. A pre-1911 world too.
heck, by the sound of it, they are owed reparations.
Oh the irony. The cold, gunmetal, irony of it all.
3 Likes
Actually, you might want to check the standards for federal wildlands. Those would be the ones in play on BLM land, mostly.
The local sherrif might not mind, but really, a civilian with a rifle in a fire watch tower? Where is that ok?
4 Likes
6 Likes
And the men pointing their guns at people shouldâve been charged. If the snipers in the refuge tower are pointing their guns at people, they should be charged as well.
They threatened to shoot any official who tries to remove or arrest them. Are you saying that they canât be charged until someone puts themselves in harmâs way to test that claim??
5 Likes
Anyone else getting confused between BLM and the BLM?
6 Likes
From 18 U.S. Code § 2331, 5(A):
" involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State"
I donât know enough about criminal law to interpret this. However, in making my best armchair effort, I like to make as few assumptions as possible. The act of brandishing a firearm and threatening to use it is considered, in most U.S. states, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Drawing that firearm is what escalates it to an act of endangerment of human life. If this is in fact the intended meaning of the law, then I suppose that law has been drawn with some very fine lines.
If Iâm mistaken, I certainly wouldnât object to being corrected.
2 Likes
Which they did last year and no one prosecuted them.
3 Likes
And they shouldâve been prosecuted. The fact that they werenât demonstrated an active, glaring double-standard in U.S. federal counter-terrorism practices and enforcement of terrorism-related laws.
3 Likes
You mean the double standard that if they were black, they would have been shot already, or a different double standard?
2 Likes
That, and the one where if they were Muslim they wouldâve been labeled terrorists and shot (not necessarily in that order).
1 Like
Great. Weâre all in agreement here then.
They have been labeled terrorists though, by many people. In fact, Domestic (read: white) Terrorism is one of the biggest internal threats within the United States. This is just one example of it.
6 Likes
you mean #BLM and BLM?
3 Likes
And a pile of regular pre-9/11 laws, too.
1 Like
If a nun breaking into a navy base is terrorism, this sure as fuck is.
15 Likes
To be fair, they probably dislike both BLMs with equal hatred.
7 Likes
