Three animal rights activists were shot with brass pellets during a recent protest against puppy mills in Santa Monica, California. According to local news outlets, the police are investigating the shootings as an assault with a deadly weapon.

About 20 activists were protesting Aquarium & Pet Center in Santa Monica, which they say sells dogs bred in puppy mills in inhumane conditions.

Carole Raphaelle Davis, the West Coast director of the Companion Animal Protection Society, said store employees have threatened the protesters and were seen laughing after three activists were hit.

The shooting resulted in minor injuries, including welts.

“It’s shocking to think that people would try to intimidate people or cause them harm simply because they expressed their views,” said WeHo council member Jeffrey Prang, who has been working with the group to write a municipal ban on the re-selling of any pets except bred or rescued animals in West Hollywood.

The incident is disturbing enough on its own, but it needs to be put in a broader context. The animal rights and environmental movements are labeled the “number one domestic terrorism threat,” according to the FBI. Some elements of those movements have engaged in property destruction, economic sabotage and arson. In the history of the U.S. animal rights movement, though, not one person has ever been targeted with physical violence and no one has been shot.

If an animal rights activist had committed a crime like this, against an animal researcher for instance, they would undoubtedly be prosecuted as a “terrorists” under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

In fact, the government’s threshold for what constitutes “terrorism” is much, much lower when it comes to the conduct of animal rights and environmental activists. Right now, four animal rights activists in California are facing charges under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for chanting and chalking slogans on the sidewalk. They’re being labeled “terrorists.”

Incidents like this should be it abundantly clear that there are two systems of law in this country. One is for the wealthy, the corporations, the animal research industry. If they are under attack, they can lobby for new terrorism legislation and pressure the politicians and government officials who represent them to crack down on the “terrorists.” They can carve out special crimes to protect them, and only them.

The other system of law is for everybody else. If they are under attack–through violence, not just home protests or economic sabotage–well, it’s just business as usual.

So what do you think? Will the government labeling this violent, politically-motivated crime “terrorism”?

A White Supremacist and Holocaust denier, James W Von Brunn, opened fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. this afternoon, wounding at least one person before being shot in the head. That makes the second violent attack by right-wing extremists in about three weeks.

Meanwhile, the “radical” animal rights and environmental movements have not harmed a single human being in their 30-plus years of existence. Yet they are the FBI’s “number one domestic terrorism threat.”

On top of this, the Holocaust Museum–one of D.C.’s most popular tourist destinations–was full of school children. And it’s not the first time Brunn armed himself in the nation’s capital:

In 1981, von Brunn entered the Federal Reserve in Washington with a shotgun to make a citizens arrest, he later said, to protest about high interest rates. He was sentenced to 11 years in jail.

Will the government and the press respond the same way they did in the murder of Dr. Tiller, and not label it “terrorism”?

How do you think the government and the press will respond?

We recently looked at why the government and the press (outside of some bloggers and opinion columnists) have not labeled the murder of an abortion provider as “terrorism.” It’s important to remember, though, that this isn’t an isolated incident. The word terrorism is used by the FBI and Department of Justice only when it fits a certain political agenda.

The government has systematically labeled animal rights and environmental activists who have never harmed anyone as “the number one domestic terrorism threat.” Yet the term is not applied to individuals who have committed much more serious (and often violent) crimes either for personal gain or for right-wing motives.

Here are 30 cases that the government has chosen to not label as “terrorism”:

1. Plotting to assassinate the president.
2. Beating African-American voters because they voted for Obama.
3. Threatening to assassinate the President and detonate C4 at the Mall of America.
4. Making death threats against biologists to “kill the enemies of Christian society.”
5. Attacking a black man with a chainsaw because of his race.
6. Using a noose to assault a black man at the Pentagon.
7. Tying up a black student and taunting him with racial epithets as part of a high school graduation party.
8. Smuggling “shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, and other military weapons.”
9. Leaving an incendiary device at a federal courthouse.
10. Placing a pipe bomb near a hotel and then calling in a bomb threat.
11. Making bomb threats on an airplane.
12. Impersonating an armed federal agent.
13. Shooting at FBI agents in a drive-by.
14. Threatening federal agents with an assault rifle.
15. Offering to sell your own child for sexual purposes.
16. Attempting to buy a 9-year-old girl for sex.
17. Selling a 5-year-old for sexual purposes.
18. Forcing a young woman to engage in prostitution through force, fraud and coercion.
19. Kidnapping 3 children.
20. Sending white powder to John McCain’s presidential campaign with a note reading, “Senator McCain, If you are reading this then you are already DEAD! Unless of course you can’t or don’t breathe.”
21. Mailing 65 threatening letters to financial institutions with white powder.
22. Mailing the Social Security Administration and saying ““I’m going to blow up your office and the IRS office as well.”
23. Sending more than 25 threatening letters to federal, state, and local governmental agencies containing fake Anthrax.
24. Sending a white powder through the U.S. mail to the Internal Revenue Service with a note that says “YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO ANTRAX DIE!”
25. A former sheriff’s deputy forcing a teenage girl to perform sexual acts in his patrol car.
26. Three police officers shooting a 92-year old woman at her home “during the execution of a search warrant obtained by the defendants based upon false information.”
27. Using “deadly weapons including firearms, baseball bats, machetes, bottles or knives in the commission of numerous murders, attempted murders and assaults…kidnapping; obstruction of justice; and witness tampering.”
28. Stealing cattle for personal profit.
29. Setting fire at a petting barn and killing more than 40 animals.
30. Setting dozens of fires that caused “incalculable suffering.”

Of course we could keep going, there’s no shortage of examples to draw from. To be clear, I am not arguing that all of these examples are in fact “terrorism” (I’ll be outlining what I think are the top criteria for defining acts of terrorism in a future article). But if the government defines “terrorism” so broadly as to include releasing mink from fur farms and protesting legally while wearing masks, then why don’t any of these qualify?