Dems Advance Legislation to Neutralize 2nd Amendment

[Ekklesian]

Democrats Bring Bill to Prohibit Armed Citizen Militias

According to the lawmakers, the legislation clarifies that ’these domestic extremists’ paramilitary operations are in no way protected by our Constitution.’

www.theepochtimes.com

Democrat lawmakers are advancing legislation intended to prevent privately organized paramilitary and militia group activities within the United States.​

​

Introduced by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) on Thursday, the bill dubbed the “Preventing Private Paramilitary Activity Act” would prohibit privately organized groups from “publicly patrolling, drilling, or engaging in harmful or deadly paramilitary techniques,” “interfering with or interrupting government proceedings,” or “interfering with the exercise of someone else’s constitutional rights,” according to Mr. Markey.​

Which is already against the law, so the target is really the civilian 'well regulated militia.'

Their bills defines a “private paramilitary organization” as “any group of 3 or more persons associating under a command structure for the purpose of functioning in public or training to function in public as a combat, combat support, law enforcement, or security services unit.” The bill states acting with or on behalf of such a private paramilitary organization while armed with a firearm, explosive, incendiary device, or other dangerous weapon, and engaging in patrolling, training, interfering with government or constitutional rights, or assuming the functions of law enforcement without official authority.​

​

...​

​

NTD News reached out for comment from Mr. Markey and Mr. Raskin, with questions as to whether their legislation would impact organized groups of individuals guarding private property, participating in neighborhood watch groups, or attending nonviolent public demonstrations while armed. They did not respond by press time.​

​

This week, U.S. Circuit Judge Florence Pan, an appointee of President Joe Biden, raised the hypothetical scenario of a president ordering the military to assassinate political rivals. NTD News asked Mr. Markey’s office whether groups that organize and train to respond to that scenario and other hypothetical scenarios involving tyrannical government action would be punished under his proposed legislation.​

 

[Smellin Coffee]

This gets tricky for sure. While militias are free to assemble and free to bear arms, there is harm when they are used to usurp a form of non-legitimate authority over unarmed citizens.

Not sure where the lines should be drawn as militias have become somewhat of a public menace; an obstruction to civil well-being. Seems states do have rights to regulate them. I don't think they can be federally regulated though.

"In the early 1990s, the fade-out of Ku Klux Klan activity gave way to the modern militia movement, a distinctly anti-government, far-right paramilitary outgrowth. Born in Michigan, the groups numbered more than 800 at their peak in 1996, and were largely a reaction to federal gun control measures like the 1993 Brady background check bill, and botched enforcement actions by the federal government, like the raids on armed compounds in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas. (Those raids are what also prompted the National Rifle Association to dub federal agents “jack-booted thugs,” cementing the group’s insurrectionist view of the Second Amendment.)

Back then, armed paramilitary groups were united in opposition to the federal government. The difference now, McCord says, is that they’re facing off with their fellow citizens.

“The danger from militias comes from usurping law enforcement’s role and imposing their will on other people,” McCord said. “It’s illegal to project authority over others without their consent. It infringes on people’s civil rights.” That includes the right to free assembly. After the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol, we examined how gun-wielding protesters can intimidate unarmed demonstrators into changing their plans — or not showing up at all. In those cases, the Second Amendment is being used to suppress the First."

<snip>

"[Militia members] are coming out in public having an intimidating and coercive impact on citizens trying to go about their lives, exercise their freedom of speech, exercise their freedom to petition their government — anytime they are are surrounding a capitol or going into a capitol and taking up space with their guns,” McCord said. That includes voting. Anti-militia laws can also be used to prohibit armed intimidation at the polls."

Then the question:

"Are militias constitutionally protected?"​

"No, McCord says. The Supreme Court ruled in 1886 in Presser v. Illinois that the Second Amendment does not prevent states from banning private paramilitary organizations, a finding that was restated in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 decision that established an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense.

“‘Militia’ has never meant ‘private militia answerable to themselves,’” McCord said. “It always meant well-regulated by the state. People focus on the Second Amendment while ignoring Congress’s Article One powers to organize and train the militia, and call forth the militia,” she said. In other words, a private militia that deploys itself, without the permission of the state or federal government, is illegal."

Are Militias Legal?

After receiving several questions from readers, our Ask The Trace series examines militia groups, from the Constitution to the modern day.

www.thetrace.org

 

[AverageJoe]

Sounds like the ones we elect to assist us in maintaining our country want to rule it with no way for the citizenry to protect themselves. Shameful!

 

[Ekklesian]

The legislation is targeting mere organization and training. Like I said, interference in lawful and protected functions of society is already illegal, so all that talk is just subterfuge to mask the prohibition of organizing and training among the civilian militia.

As far as what it means to be a well regulated militia:

The Well-Regulated Militia

“No free government was ever founded, or preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and the soldier in those destined for the defense of a free state…such are a well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizens and husbandmen, who take up arms to preserve...

www.heritage.org

 

[Ekklesian]

Their bills defines a “private paramilitary organization” as “any group of 3 or more persons associating under a command structure for the purpose of functioning in public or training to function in public as a combat, combat support, law enforcement, or security services unit.” The bill states acting with or on behalf of such a private paramilitary organization while armed with a firearm

And this is why...to make it illegal to defend against imminent riots and mob violence certain to erupt if by some miracle the Dem fraud can be overcome this November.

Migrants attack NYPD officers, hurl objects as they make an arrest at shelter plagued with problems · American Wire News

The NYPD got into it with illegal immigrants at a shelter after one of them slammed an officer with a backpack. He was immediately subdued.

americanwirenews.com

 

[Ekklesian]

Obama-Appointed Judge Rules Illegal Immigrants Can Carry Guns in the U.S. | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

U.S.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, appointed by Barack Obama, ruled that an illegal immigrant has the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.​

​

This ruling came about in the case of Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, who faced charges under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), a federal statute that prohibits noncitizens without legal status in the U.S. from “possess[ing] in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”​

​

Carbajal-Flores, who has been living in the United States illegally, was charged after he was found to be carrying a gun in Chicago during the civil unrest in the spring of 2020.​

​

...​

​

X user, The Patriot Voice, wrote, “I want you to read that again SLOWLY, and tell me how we are NOT being set up for some serious action on our own soil with ARMED FOREIGN INVADERS.​

​

...​

​

Another said, “I’m a federal felon and I find it ludicrous that I don’t have a second amendment anymore but someone who breaks federal immigration law, gets to have a second amendment.”​

 

[aleshanee]

i know a few people who say the concept of ill-egal is nothing but a big sick bird...... ....of course i don;t agree with them... ... but when it comes to things like personal freedom... having the ability to defend oneself... and simply protecting the integrity of the bill of rights i think they are not far from the truth........ .... when government moves in to remove rights and freedoms or impose it;s personal will they are literally swooping in like a big bird of prey.... ..and one that;s sick or demented in the opinions of many...

 

[AverageJoe]

NO illegal should have access to a firearm... period. I've lost friends over this ideology. Personally, I don't give a rats behind. The possibility of us losing our republic to a bunch of armed invaders increases with every single illegal who enters OUR country.

 

[aleshanee]

NO illegal should have access to a firearm... period. I've lost friends over this ideology. Personally, I don't give a rats behind. The possibility of us losing our republic to a bunch of armed invaders increases with every single illegal who enters OUR country.

i agree..... ...there was a time when invasions of american soil by armed foreign invaders would have been considered an act of war.... ..(a concept some of my ancestors learned a little too late... ) .... democrats trying to support a judge that would arm illegals while disarming american citizens just lends credence to what conservatives say who believe democrats are intentionally trying to destroy the country... ....years ago i thought they did such things out of ignorance and stupidity - but it;s hard to keep believing that when you see things like this..... ..

 

[Ekklesian]

And this is why...to make it illegal to defend against imminent riots and mob violence certain to erupt if by some miracle the Dem fraud can be overcome this November.

And to protect the fraudsters, too.