Domestic Terrorists

From Washington Attorney General, Bob Ferguson’s 2022 Domestic Terrorism Study:

A note on terminology: “domestic terrorism” (DT) is an undefined term in the Revised Code of Washington, but is defined in the U.S. Code as “activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

It appears that the emphasized portions of the text above are satisfied by politicians and/or law enforcement who create and/or enforce gun control laws in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Domestic terrorists. Yeah. That sounds right to me.

I look forward to their trials.

Share

4 thoughts on “Domestic Terrorists

  1. LOL!! You still haven’t learned have you. Laws do NOT apply to politicians nor to their hired muscle unless it is necessary to create a scapegoat for political purposes.

  2. Here’s are the commendations of the report, where “DVE” means “Domestic Violent Extremism”:


    Recommendation 4: The Commission should conduct and publish a review of Washington State’s existing civil and criminal codes to create a toolkit of potential legal options to respond to DVE. Additionally, the Commission should conduct a study, with significant community input, both to review legal options under existing laws and regulations and to explore potential new legislation and/or regulations. We recommend that the Commission refrain from proposing new criminal laws defining and penalizing “domestic terrorism,” in light of evidence-based community concern that these types of laws have the potential to be applied disproportionately against BIPOC communities. To the extent the Commission considers proposing any new DVE-related criminal penalties, they should be narrowly crafted to address specific DVE-related conduct and drafted carefully to avoid the potential disproportionate application to marginalized and vulnerable communities. Issue areas this work should encompass include:
    a. Mandatory training to improve law enforcement readiness to address DVE;
    b. Additional state law tools, and particularly those that support civil remedies, to combat DVE;
    c. Legislation prohibiting private paramilitary activity that interferes with government proceedings, infringes on others’ constitutional rights, or usurps law enforcement authority, including civil mechanisms to enjoin such activity;
    d. Legislation disqualifying those who engage in extremist activity from public employment or service, or from working as armed private security guards, or serving as law enforcement or private security trainers;
    e. Legislation in the model of the bipartisan federal Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act that would authorize and fund joint investigation and reporting on DVE incidents. Such a bill could create an inter-agency task force to analyze and combat extremist infiltration of state law enforcement and other state agencies.
    f. Licensure and training of private security guards;
    g. Review of criteria for granting tax-exempt status to nonprofit organizations to ensure that unauthorized militia or private paramilitary organizations and other extremist organizations are not improperly obtaining and operating under tax-exempt status;
    h. Potential amendments to regulations of firearms ranges; for example, to prohibit individuals who engage in extremist activity from receiving grant funds from the Firearms Range Account, RCW 79A.25.210, and to prohibit firearms ranges from being used for unlawful paramilitary training.

    The rest of the document is typical lefty-speak: they want to treat domestic terrorism with a “public health” model. Much of what is written here is based on an assumption of ‘right wing’ domestic terrorism, which they strive mightily every day to find and when they hire their witch hunters to find it, by Jove, they find someone to call a witch.

    They don’t spend any time looking into the left wing domestic terrorism, which starts with indoctrination in the public education system and universities and various non-profits, frequently with the aid of public funds. That said, their recommendations have an interesting clause that will be quite valuable: Legislation disqualifying those who engage in extremist activity from public employment or service. Absolutely support this kind of legislation; the Democrat legislators might find themselves and a lot of their staff suddenly out on the street with nothing to do but wave their professionally printed signs.

    Black Bloc, Antifa, the part of BLM that aren’t ‘mostly peaceful’, RevCom, the action wings of environmentalist groups are all domestic terrorists, by the federal definition. Putting on the Black Bloc uniform of all black clothes, hoodie, face covering and backpack is not intended to provide a benefit to the individual. It is to provide deniability for the ones that are pre-planned to commit arson, battery, theft and various other violent and destructive crimes. At minimum, by wearing the Black Bloc uniform to a ‘protest’/riot, that individual is guilty of being an accessory to any crime committed at the gathering by a similarly attired group of people, and those crimes are committed to further a ‘domestic violent extremism’ purpose. Further, the pre-planning and coordination among several people to wear the Black Bloc uniform is conspiracy. I’d say the same for any group that organized an identity concealing uniform to facilitate crime, such as the white pointy uniform of the KKK (who were also the Democrat Party militant wing, back in the day).

  3. “A note on terminology: “domestic terrorism” (DT) is an undefined term in the Revised Code of Washington, but is defined in the U.S. Code as “activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

    When committed by someone we don’t like.
    There, I fixed it for them.

Comments are closed.