[DoodleDawg]

Here's the law in question: Link; paragraph (f)(1). There is nothing in that law that specifically identifies it as an anti-terrorism law. And it's one that's been on the books since the 1970's or before.

[Lazamataz]

Here's the law in question: Link; paragraph (f)(1). There is nothing in that law that specifically identifies it as an anti-terrorism law. And it's one that's been on the books since the 1970's or before.

After some significant digging, I discovered you are 100% right. The Bundys are the only ones putting forth the terrorism prosecution angle. The law is covered by the 1996 Anti-Terrorism act in that it SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES prosecution as terrorism for this law. Source

Additionally, asserted by the AG of Oregon, Billy J. Williams: "Williams also disputed the notion that the Hammonds were prosecuted as terrorists, as Bundy suggested. "The jury was neither asked if the Hammonds were terrorists, nor were defendants ever charged with or accused of terrorism," Williams wrote. "Suggesting otherwise is simply flat-out wrong."

Thank you for correcting this widely-repeated lie.