From the moment the left started touting the January 6 protests as an “insurrection,” wise Americans knew the language was being normalized to give Democrats an edge to restrict constitutionally protected freedoms further. In the latest attack on the Constitution, Democratic lawmakers are seeking to ban militias.
Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) has introduced a bill to outlaw state militias. The “Preventing Private Paramilitary Act” will be yet another case for the already overworked United States Supreme Court to hear.
“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,” Markey said. The bill is already gaining traction among Second Amendment-hating leftists in Congress.
The language is simple: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But the nuances run deep, and the left seeks to oppose every word of the Second Amendment in any way possible.
Constitutional expert Jack Rakove explains that the historical context of the militia language is essential in understanding why it was included. The term “well-regulated” in the 18th century implied being well-organized, well-armed, and well-disciplined, not in the contemporary sense of regulatory state. According to Rakove, it denoted the militia’s effectiveness in combat rather than the state exerting control in a specific manner; it signified the militia being prepared for its duty.
The militia’s duty, Rakove notes, was to protect citizens from invasions but, more importantly, to function as a “deterrent against national tyranny.”
With all fifty states already having laws restricting private paramilitary activity, the bill is senseless political posturing. Several federal laws address the issue as well. Markey’s legislation contains useless tidbits, such as preventing militias from interfering with individual citizens exercising their rights and prohibiting personnel from posing as police officers.
Leftist organizations fawned over the bill. Protect Democracy’s Deana El-Mallawany hailed the proposed legislation, claiming that January 6 exposed the real threat posed by the rise of private paramilitary groups to democracy and the rule of law. She further claims that such groups have interfered with constitutionally protected rights, attempted unauthorized law enforcement activities, and targeted vulnerable populations in recent years.
The bill’s co-sponsor, Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD), asserts that militia groups employ “political violence” to intimidate Americans and pose a threat to democracy. Raskin emphasizes that the legislation clarifies that the Constitution does not protect domestic extremists’ paramilitary operations and thanks Markey for his crucial effort to “safeguard the rule of law, discourage insurrection, and defend democracy.”
In a news release, Markey specifically called out the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys as a “significant threat to democracy and the rule of law.” Calling them the forces of hatred, bigotry, and, of course, violent extremism, he stressed the urgent need to prohibit their “unauthorized activities,” which, he claims ironically, impede constitutional rights.
By labeling January 6 an “insurrection,” Democrats feel they have cleared the path for a powerful overturning of the Second Amendment. They are not stopped by the absence of a significant threat to the government, the lack of violence reaching the level of “insurrection,” and a noticeable lack of weaponry or any announced plans by protesters to take over the government on January 6.
Influential liberals continue to pair the term “insurrection” to the January 6 protest, with the full support of the Biden administration and an overly eager media, and CNN viewers continue to believe that the protest was, in fact, an “insurrection.”
And if Democrats can convince followers that an “insurrection” occurred, they have total freedom to challenge the Constitution in any way they deem necessary to “prevent another one” from happening.
A case in point is the Preventing Paramilitary Activity Act. Under this legislation, criminal penalties would be imposed for “certain conduct” conducted by militia members, such as intimidating elected officials and interfering with government proceedings. Of course, the activities to be punished will be left open to the interpretation of the left. The activities of left-leaning organizations, such as the Black Panthers’ attempts to dissuade conservative voters through physical threats outside polling stations, will likely be unchallenged.
The deepest irony in Markey’s proposed legislation is that it uses governmental overreach to block organizations established to fight governmental overreach. Markey has taken it on himself to weigh in on the Constitution and “clarify that it doesn’t protect paramilitary operations.”
Let that sink in. One man is rewriting the Constitution to fit his party’s agenda, and the left is throwing a party. One can only imagine the next steps Democrats have planned in the endless war on America.
