The Preventing Private Paramilitary Activities Act of 2024: Organized violence in a civil society
Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts would like to ban private paramilitary activities. He is expressing this desire in a bill that he has introduced in his chamber of the U.S. Congress, S.3589 - Preventing Private Paramilitary Activity Act of 2024, that seeks to make it a crime punishable by a fine or a term of not more than a year in prison for a first offense to:
“(1) publically patrol, drill, or engage in techniques capable of causing bodily injury or death; (2) interfere with, interrupt, or attempt to interfere with or interrupt government operations or a government proceeding; (3) interfere with or intimidate another person in that person's exercise of any right under the Constitution of the United States; (4) assume the functions of a law enforcement officer, peace officer, or public official, whether or not acting under color of law, and thereby assert authority or purport to assert authority over another person without the consent of that person; or (5) train to engage in any activity described in paragraphs (1) through (4).”
There are a variety of specific exceptions for people who are involved in training from government-sanctioned institutions such as the National Guard or a college with a military science class or a peaceful march of a veterans’ organization, and—do note this—it would still be legal to “associate as a military organization solely for purposes of historical reenactment or study.” But Markey does wish to make sure that Americans are not using any “firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or dangerous weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce” or any “ammunition or a large capacity ammunition feeding device” that has similarly crossed state lines while engaged in the above activities. In addition to imprisonment and fines, persons convicted under this law would also face the loss of any personal property used in the commission.
How likely this is to pass, given the narrow divide of the Senate and Republican control of the House is anyone’s guess, though my prediction would be that it will lounge in a committee until it quietly disappears. And despite its ominous language, I have to wonder just how much it might accomplish if it were to become law. It is already a crime in all states to assemble for the purpose of denying others their rights or to act as law enforcement without official authority. And as the prosecutions of the January 6th rioters demonstrates, attempting to disrupt the legal functions of government is also a violation. And many groups already understand that it is best not to call themselves a militia.
What the bill seeks to ban walks a vague path through the Constitution. A private paramilitary organization is defined therein 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.” Very well, can a group be private security, so long as members do not pretend to be cops? Is a command structure permitted if the group also stands outside of grocery stores at Christmas and rings bells to request donations? What about times in which the rule of law has withdrawn or collapsed, such as was experienced in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina or in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict? And what if members are carefully trained to say that they are re-enacting some bit of history or studying a particular incident? The language of the bill also bans “patrol, drill, or [engaging in] techniques capable of causing bodily injury or death” in public. Does this apply to said activities done on private land?
Fenix Ammunition concluded in a tweet that the purpose here is to prevent Americans from being “competent and proficient with your weapon systems,” though whoever wrote the tweet also claimed that the bill is written by “the same people who think it's totally fine for men to dress up in leather and dog collars and parade through the streets in front of children,” and a visit to Fenix’s website, its opening challenge question including a link to the paranoid rantings of Alex Jones, tells me what I need to know about this company.
But there is a good point underlying Fenix’s tweet, namely the concern that if this bill becomes law, it could be used by law enforcement to harass groups who gather to practice with weapons and discuss tactics, even when prosecutors ought to know that there is no winnable case. People who cite the exemptions in the text or who are not in fact planning any illegal activity might still receive visitations from cops on a regular basis or invitations to explain themselves to the district attorney, and getting a search warrant only takes a small measure of cleverness in the application and the right judge. Weapons and training with them are the classic dual-use technology and activity, and there are enough prosecutors who favor civilian disarmament to make relying on their good will in interpreting the nature of what is going on dubious.
And yet, the history of the Freikorps, of private armies in Afghanistan, of the civil wars in Colombia and the Balkans, and on and on force me to see some merit in what Senator Markey wants to do. Sadly, his approach is just what gun control advocates do when attempting to reduce violence: push ill-conceived legislation without understanding what is going on and that uses vague but sweeping language in an effort to “do something.”
The better answer is to use the tools we already have available. It is illegal to conspire to overthrow the government. It is illegal to deny others the exercise of their basic rights or to conspire to do so. It is illegal to engage in violence against innocents or to take on police powers without actually being a police officer. This new bill does not show that anything is missing from these extant powers.
Senator Markey’s bill is nothing but busywork, and I look forward to its failure to get itself into law.
This looks unconstitutional on its face. It is legal to make a citizen arrest, for example. What about IDPA matches?
This is one reason I have as much respect for the Democrats as I do for the Republicans.