To Blue States “Banning” Militias – BLM and Antifa Behave Like Militias

by
Steve MacDonald

Antifa was founded in the 1930s to attract National Socialists to their Marxist cause. The Former were attracting people away from their movement—which has very similar worldviews—and the Marxists wanted a monopoly on unhinged, violent street thuggery. Socialists do, after all, think they should own everything.

Someone has to own it; it just can’t be you.

For obvious reasons, these details are left out of the 21st-century Anifa brochures (saving space for all the color photos of them setting  Portland ablaze). Pretty. Fire. Hee Hee.

Any affectations to the contrary are nonsense. They don’t care about gays, or blacks, or women’s health care, or being trans, or justice of any kind. They are focused on using those things to divide people so that they are unable or unwilling to join hands against the Democrat party. A party that hates it when other people have guns. The party of “you didn’t build that.”

Antifa are the left’s modern-day red shirts (in black block). They are engaged in street actions. They are, for all intents and purposes, a militia. But, laws regulating militias never mention Antifa. They talk about patriot groups or anti-government groups and use that as an excuse for other agendas. Vermont passed anti-militia legislation as part of a zoning dispute. Portland, where you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting an Antifa member, has legislation prohibiting or limiting citizen ‘militias.’

 

SECTION 1. (1) A person or group of persons is subject to an action described in subsection (2) or (3) of this section for engaging in paramilitary activity if the person or group
of persons knowingly, while acting as part of a private paramilitary organization or on behalf
of or in furtherance of any objective of a private paramilitary organization:
(a) While armed with a deadly weapon, publicly patrols or drills;
(b) While armed with a dangerous or deadly weapon:
(A) Publicly engages in techniques capable of causing physical injury or death;
(B) Substantially disrupts governmental operations or a government proceeding;
(C) Assumes, exercises or asserts, without legal authorization, the functions, powers or
duties of:
(i) A law enforcement officer, including any sheriff, police officer, marshal or other peace
officer; or
(ii) Any local, city, county, state or federal official; or
(D) Interferes with another person and thereby:
(i) Prevents the other person, or attempts to prevent the other person, from engaging
in conduct in which the other person has a legal right to engage; or
(ii) Causes the other person, or attempts to cause the other person, to engage in conduct
from which the other person has a legal right to abstain; or
(c) Trains to engage in any activity described in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this subsection.

 

No state allows paramilitary militias – not exactly -but what, in the context of the Oregon bill, is something Antifa does not or has not done? They are, by design, a trained, organized, violent faction, but all we ever hear is how they are involved in some violent act or about how they seized a police station or courthouse or tried to do that.

It might be a good question for candidates who support additional layers of law to address “groups,” especially if they invoke January 6th. The only armed individuals were government “employees.” If that is the framework or motivation for new legislation to address unrest, you’d better be prepared to explain how you’ve gotten buy-in from ‘constituents’ in BLM or Antifa, both of whom are more likely to run afoul of the law was the intention that it be equally applied.

 

Author

  • Steve MacDonald

    Steve is a long-time New Hampshire resident, blogger, and a member of the Board of directors of The 603 Alliance. He is the owner of Grok Media LLC and the Managing Editor of GraniteGrok.com, a former board member of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire, and a past contributor to the Franklin Center for Public Policy.

Share to...