Self-preservation of the beast

It will fight for survival - we must fight back

On January 11, 2024, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) brought forth a bill in the House of Representatives, co-sponsored by eleven other Democrats, that on its face seeks to preserve the government from insurrection. The bill, H.R. 6981 , titled, “Preventing Private Paramilitary Activity Act of 2024,” seeks to outlaw any activity that might be seen as “paramilitary” by private citizens. This is a relatively short bill, with it defining offenses as follows:

(a) Offense.—It shall be unlawful to knowingly, in a circumstance described in subsection (b), while acting as part of or on behalf of a private paramilitary organization and armed with a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other dangerous weapon—

“(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).

Such a bill coming from Democrats should be no surprise; but I expect it will garner support from many a Republican as well. Yet even a cursory read reveals a parlous potential. There is more to this bill than “preventing private paramilitary activity.” The main points I took from it are as follows:

• The government is trying to protect itself from an uprising (read: J6-like “insurrection” - see a.2 above)

• The government is trying to avoid Texans going to the border to defend it

• The government is trying to outlaw any type of training by civilians that might actually make them suited to handle conflict with the military or government as expounded in the Federalist No. 29

• The government is trying again to strip citizens of their 2A rights without due process

That the government is trying to protect itself is clear. It has been clear ever since the term “assault rifle” came into use as anti-Second Amendment propaganda. The fact that very few of all the firearm crimes in this country are committed with an “assault rifle” or any type of rifle that may bear the appearance of something used by the military (but I repeat myself). This of course flies in the face of the fact that the founding fathers fully intended that the citizenry should be “little if at all inferior to [the army] in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens” (Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist No. 29). Au contraire mon frère, the Second Amendment was written explicitly to ensure the citizens were armed equally to any military the government might raise.

So, while the government is tasked with preventing insurrection (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the U.S. Constitution), according to the Declaration of Independence, the people have a right (and a duty) to overthrow the government if it ceases to secure our rights and liberties and instead becomes despotic.

That the government is afraid of we the people exercising the right and duty to “throw off such Government” as has perpetrated a “long train of abuses and usurpations” against the people (as our government has) shows they (despite denying it) recognize these thoughts from the framers’ recorded in the Declaration of Independence. It is clear the citizenry is becoming discontent, but dissent will not be tolerated (though the right to a “redress of grievances” is guaranteed by the First Amendment). This is why so many are made an example after having simply entered and left the Capitol on January 6, 2020.

More recently, considering the battle between Texas and the Federal Government over defending our southern border, there is surely concern over Texas not only deploying police and national guard detachments, but over Texans joining in to stand a post. Most see Texas as still being the “Wild Wild West,” and though this is not quite true, many, many Texans do possess firearms and are very patriotic. It would not be surprising for average Texans to gear up and head south. Under this bill, however, such activity would be criminal.

Training likewise will be illegal. According to subsection a, paragraph 5, training in such a way as to be prepared for any necessary defensive (or offensive) action could be construed to be criminal. Thus this could be applied to anyone who trains with a group. I myself have attended such training as part of a team. This bill would have considered such training activity as illegal activity of a “paramilitary organization” since, according to the bill, “[t]he term ‘private paramilitary organization’ means 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.”

You might think, perhaps, this would not apply to an individual, but you would be wrong. No, the leftists are prepared for that. If you trained at all with a group, even if you act separately, you will be liable:

(f) Rule Of Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude a violation of subsection (a) being committed by a person acting separately from the other members of the private paramilitary organization, provided that the violation is committed in furtherance of or in coordination with the actions of the other members.

If we the people are intended to be “the militia” as the founding fathers envisioned, then we need to be armed and trained. 10 USC § 246 defines two militias:

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)The classes of the militia are—

(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Other previous acts, such as the Militia Act of 1792 had slightly, though not substantive, differing requirements for the militia, such as age (18 instead of 17), and having to provide one’s own arms and supplies. So, to define the legal militia (10 USC § 246 is still current law) as an illegal “paramilitary organization” is abhorrent. This would enter into Title 18 a new chapter that is in direct conflict with the existing statute under Title 10.

Worse are the consequences. This is why I mention the typical leftist gun-grabbing gaffe. Under section (e) of this abominable act, “[a]ny person who violates subsection (a) shall forfeit to the United States any property, personal or real, involved in, used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, the violation, or that constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the violation.” According to subsection (a), anyone who attends a firearm training with multiple people who train as a team would be subject to forfeiture of “any property” used in that training, or “intended to be used” to violate any other stipulations under subsection (a).

If you attend any firearms training, how do you prove the “intent” with which you train? Almost any legal activity involving a firearm could (and would) readily be construed by an anti-2A judge to be in violation of this act resulting in forfeiture of property. What property might be forfeit? Perhaps the definitions included at the outset of the bill can provide some insight. They include: ammunition, firearm, “dangerous weapon”, explosive or incendiary device, and “large capacity ammunition feeding device” (any device capable of holding more than 10 bullets). Tell me you are a tyrannical government attempting again to skirt the Second Amendment and take away citizens’ right to defense against tyrannical government without telling me you’re a tyrannical government attempting again to skirt the Second Amendment and take away citizens’ right to defense against a tyrannical government.

I urge you to read the bill. I urge you to contact your Representative and your Senators and demand they reject this bill. The wannabe tin pot dictators roaming the halls of Congress see the writing on the wall, and like a cornered animal, they’re going on the attack. Don’t let them get away with it. The beast will always try to preserve itself, but we have a right, and now a duty, to put it to rest.