Congressional Democrats move to crack down on militia activity in the U.S.

A pair of Democratic lawmakers have introduced bills that would prevent private paramilitary activity in the U.S.

Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts put forth the legislation that would create a federal prohibition on paramilitary groups through civil and criminal enforcement.

The ban would hold individuals liable who directly engage in certain types of conduct, including intimidating state and local officials, interfering with government proceedings, pretending to be law enforcement, and violating people’s constitutional rights, while armed and acting as part of a private paramilitary organization.

The lawmakers say a federal law is necessary to prevent another Jan. 6-style attack on the Capitol by white supremacists who are tied to “private paramilitary actors.” Although each state has various laws for private paramilitary groups, Mr. Raskin and Mr. Markey said the laws are often outdated, under-enforced or ignored.

“Three years ago, white supremacists affiliated with paramilitary organizations stormed the U.S. Capitol, shattering windows, walls, and the families of five U.S. Capitol Police officers,” Mr. Markey said.

“Private paramilitary actors, such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, pose a serious threat to democracy and the rule of law, and we must create new prohibitions on their unauthorized activities that interfere with the exercise of people’s constitutional rights. The forces of bigotry, hatred, and violent extremism must be stopped for the sake of our democracy,” he said.

Mr. Raskin said the militia groups are running amok in America.

“Patrolling neighborhoods, impeding law enforcement and storming the U.S. Capitol, private paramilitary groups like the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters and the Proud Boys are using political violence to intimidate our people and threaten democratic government and the rule of law,” he said. “Our legislation makes the obvious but essential clarification that these domestic extremists’ paramilitary operations are in no way protected by our Constitution.”

Asked whether the legislation targeted right-wing groups, Mr. Raskin said the legislation was not written with a particular ideological viewpoint.

“But the law, as you well know, is written in objective terms. So anybody who engages in prohibited paramilitary activity would be subject to the law,” said Mr. Raskin, a Maryland Democrat who served on the Jan. 6 Select Committee.

The bill is unlikely to survive in the GOP-run House and it’s questionable if it can pass in the Democrat-run Senate. But Mr. Raskin said it was a starting point.

Rep. Clay Higgins, a Louisiana Republican who is a U.S. Army veteran and former law enforcement officer, excoriated both the bill and its authors.

“There’s no way guys like that are going to mandate the everyday life and behaviors of who I associate with. What we decide to do. What we decide to discuss. If we decide to go to the range and train,” he said.

“Those same guys would be lost on a tactical training range. They’d go hide in their car. They don’t qualify to hang out with me. And I don’t expect them to understand the kinds of skills that men like me honed over the course of my life. They are only required to be quiet and stay out of our way if the s—- hits the fan anywhere in any way so that we can protect them.”

The legislation, the Private Paramilitary Activity Act, would establish various levels of criminal penalties based on whether violations result in injury or property damage; provide harsher penalties for repeat offenders; and allow for a probationary sentence for first-time offenders.

The legislation would create civil remedies by authorizing the Department of Justice to seek injunctive relief against paramilitary activity. It also creates a private right of action for individuals harmed by paramilitary activity to seek injunctive relief and/or damages.

The term “private paramilitary organization” is defined in the bill 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 would prohibit the following dangerous conduct:

• Publicly patrolling, drilling, or engaging in harmful or deadly paramilitary techniques;

• Interfering with or interrupting government proceedings;

• Interfering with the exercise of someone else’s constitutional rights;

• Falsely assuming the functions of law enforcement and asserting authority over others;

• Training to engage in the prohibited conduct.

The legislation has exceptions for activities including historic reenactments, state-sanctioned trainings and veterans’ parades.