David Codrea on the Bundy Ranch Incident.

Note:  David Codrea is a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He is a field editor for GUNS Magazine, and a blogger at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.

Note 1:  I've been speculating that the Feds had all manner of surveillance going on at the Bundy Ranch and that they would let everything die down and we'd wake up in a year or so to news of mass raids throughout the country happening simultaneously.

Note 2:  We've been hearing Sen Reid first make the statement that this isn't over and then second that the people that showed up to the Bundy Ranch were domestic terrorist....which brings me to this story from the Examiner...

Putting aside reader opposition to or support for the Bundy claims, and ignoring allegations of Reid’s (and his son Rory’s) personal interests in the disposition of the land in question, what must be examined is what the senator must mean if he seriously believes his accusation.
“Domestic terrorism” is a legal term, defined by U.S. Code. It’s prosecutable. Assets can be seized, including assets of supporters. Provisions of the Patriot Act could kick in, with all that implies. And felony convictions would certainly result in those found guilty becoming “prohibited persons” under federal law from owning a gun.
Assuming PR considerations would preclude Obama from ordering drone strikes, is the foregoing really what Harry Reid has in mind? In spite of the efforts of Oath Keepers and others to ensure that a peaceful resolution is paramount, does “true champion of the Second Amendment” Harry Reid want everyone on the side of the Bundy family who has been on the ground near Bunkerville -- and those providing them with material support -- to be prosecuted as domestic terrorists?
Does he truly wish for those whom he politically disagrees with to forever lose federal recognition of their right to keep and bear arms?
Considering his longtime gravitation toward Michael Bloomberg, his support for federal oversight of private gun sales, and his embracing of Diane Feinstein’s renewed “assault weapon” ban, such an admission would hardly be surprising.

Quite honestly this surprises me and takes me to a place I hadn't considered.

I was mostly looking at the guys on the overpass that pointed weapons at LEOs as being the targets of my mythical raids in the future.  If the term "Domestic Terrorist" can actually be applied to the participants at the incident then you're looking at an escalation in this brewing battle.

It leads to questions though.

1.  If you simply protest against a police action is that now terrorism?
2.  If you're armed on private property during a police action and DO NOT point your weapon at police but vocally state your opposition to them does that count as interference with police in them doing their work?
3.  Will the guy on the overpass be charged with Domestic Terrorism as well as assault?

This is gonna get sticky and messy.

Seems like both sides want a fight and are bound and determined to get one.