Why isn't there legislation, and laws against domestic terrorism?

[duforsure]

With serious sentencing guidelines. There should be strong laws on the books with serious consequences for those involved , including the instigators, and covering all government officials threatened, and to government officials threatening others.

[Pachamama]

1. Germans are asking that question

They remember a time in their history when it wasn’t the law on the books as it is now…

Led to some pretty horrible things…

These days political groups like the AFD are under surveillance and their domestic terror laws are very strong.

[RockRaven]

2. Short answer: the various specific acts (like threatening elected officials) are already illegal

under various statutes, as are conspiracies to do said acts. Do we really need new laws, or would better enforcement of existing ones suffice?

Since all the various criminal acts are already, well, criminalized, what would such a proposed domestic terrorism law newly criminalize that wouldn't impinge upon our 1st Amendment protections of speech and association?

In considering a possible new law of this sort, imagine the worst possible abuse of it by people like Sessions/Barr/TFG and ask if it is really worth giving them such a tool to misuse against you. Because they will.

[duforsure]

3. Abuse of existing laws will continue either way,

But like with what was done after the 9-11 attack the country needs to legislate better laws to protect us more than it does now, and with stiffer penalties, or these will escalate, and they'll call for more to promote domestic terror with violence openly. If they get full control again they will create laws for the purpose of legalizing the use of violence against any who oppose them anyway.

[Kaleva]

4. If Rs return to power, they can vacate the laws you propose

Also, SCOTUS may vacate such laws as a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Remember the old adage that one can't yell fire in a crowded theater? The Supreme Court reversed that back around 1968. Back when liberals controlled the court.

[Metaphorical]

5. Simple

What you call domestic terrorists the Republicans call constituents

[The Magistrate]

7. Hear Hear, Sir

[JT45242]

6. Because rethigs would kill in senate with filibuster

Since the days of the Bundy clan for sure, there was no way the rethugs would risk losing the overrepresented seats in nd, sd, wy, and ID by passing serious legislation aimed at domestic terrorists.

Those states plus the part of Iowa that elected Steve King over and over, plus the deep south want the kkk, oaf creepers, etc to keep voting for them.

Hell, yesterday at the Iowa state Fair a vendor near the main gate was selling 'patriot' gear with a logo that included a flag with an iron cross. Neonazis are the rethugs base. That is why.