Vermont Democrats banned militias last year, which we observed was an odd departure given that the state existed because of one. Comrade Ed Markey (D- MA), following Vermont’s lead, though it is more likely a shared totalitarian itch they have to scratch, has offered up legislation to ban “militias” nationwide.
The bill seeks to limit most militia activity, creating criminal penalties for people who engage in certain conduct, including intimidating elected officials, interfering with government proceedings, and pretending to be law enforcement.
Alert, Warning, Danger Democrat Will Robinson, Danger!
I’m not sure why I have to say this at all about the political Left intimidates elected officials every day and government officials often. I can’t imagine they’ve not thought of that, which is why that was not the reason from my headline. Democrats don’t follow laws, and they don’t take them to limit themselves or their advocates, but Markey is playing with fire. Any immediate challenge to the bill, should it become law, and it will get challenged should that happen, would have a difficult time surviving even a constructionist reading of the Second Amendment.
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.
You might argue, given the deliberate words in the Second Amendment, that it exists to prevent Ed Markey and Democrats from banning militias or anything the government decides has the appearance of one. The Left has also gone to great lengths, for as long as they’ve been able, to argue that local National Guard units are what is meant by militia, but that makes no sense. A free state cannot protect itself from an overreaching tyranny with garrisoned National “troops,” even if they are constituted of locals. The word ‘National’ suggests fidelity to the general government, not the states.
The states ratified the constitution to restrain the national government in the interest of their freedom from it. It is, therefore, contrary to suggest that the security of a free state, in the form of a militia, can in any way be confused with a national guard. Or perhaps it can, but given the plain language of the Amendment and the fact that every other right of the people is individual, a Supreme Court-level challenge seems unlikely to survive this – if it even has to go that far to get turned away.
Not that I’m laying my hopes upon judges to protect the natural rights of self-defense and, by extension, an association or assembly or peaceful but armed citizens (is not a militia potentially protected by the First Amendment as well?).
Ian will have plenty of excellent thoughts about it, I hope, so we’ll leave the rest to comments, but I have to think that someone smarter than Ed Markey will have a “New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York” moment. The City, after realizing what it was likely in for in the highest court, changed the law to make the case moot.
This, I think, could be like that.
Markey is looking to take a big bite out of something he and his party may not be able to chew it.
S.3589, by the way, was announced on January 6th in response to an alleged insurrection in which none of the protesters was armed. It was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 16th, where it sits, like a companion bill in House HR6981.
S.3589 has only one co-sponsor in the Senate. The House version has eleven co-sponsors.