Is it a first-degree misdemeanor to make the same threat against a "mundane" citizen? If not, why do elected officials get more weight than the people who they merely serve?
Another problem with having a hammer and seeing all problems as nails is how often one misses obvious hypocrisy.
Notice that the anarchist is concerned about some special protections for government employees, while expressing no similar concerns about special protections for gun carriers. The
felony level penalties for falsely reporting violence with a gun, don't apply to baseball bats, cars, or pressure cookers. Why not? And why is the anarchist not worried about this disparity even while being so concerned about
misdemeanor penalties for threatening government employees?
The two aspects of the law are very much in harmony with each other and should be obvious to anyone not blinded by puerile hatred of all things government or anything that actually acknowledges the proper authority and role of government.
False reports about gun carriers are not merely crimes against an individual gun carrier, but are have the collective effect of--as well as quite often being individually calculated to--depriving citizens of a constitutional right. If carrying a gun is likely to result in false claims of gun violence such that police respond to an armed and dangerous situation, then eventually law abiding gun carriers may be discouraged from exercising their rights.
In a similar vein, often, threats of violence against government employees or their families are not merely crimes against the individual, but are intended to "monkey wrench" the very functioning of government. And that affects all of us including the childish who prattle on about not having given individual consent. If the families of police officers are threatened so as to discourage officers from properly investigating crimes, society suffers for the lack of proper investigation and resolution of crimes. If fire fighters are threatened so that an arsonist can watch his fire burn, many innocent lives are placed in danger beyond just the fire fighters who were threatened. If parole board members or their families are threatened so as to sway their decisions on when to release or not release convicted criminals, or judges or their families so as to sway judicial decisions, we no longer have any hint of impartiality in law.
Now, before someone tries to prove how smart they are by pointing out some obscure case where a threat against an individual affects a larger group and that case isn't covered by this law, let me acknowledge right up front that laws are not perfect. They will miss some cases. Sometimes they will catch cases they were not intended to catch. Perfection is an unattainable standard and those who demand it are simply being dishonest.
But laws such as this are based on sound principles. In my State of Utah, for example, most murders do not qualify for capital punishment. There are a number of aggravating factors that can raise the crime to the capital level one. One of them is if there are multiple victims. (Other factors include being committed in a particularly tortuous or heinous manner.) All else being equal, a crime against many is more severe than a crime against one.
False reports of lawful gun carriers engaging in violence, and threatening government officials both have high potential to result in crimes against multiple victims (at the macro level) and are often intended t do just than, than do many other crimes that might, on their face, appear otherwise similar.
Certainly, anyone who is read, intelligent, and thoughtful on matters regarding government or social orders would be aware of these considerations. But some are so blinded by ideology as to anesthetize their own capabilities.
Charles