Senate Bill: S3589
Matthew 18:20: “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
Merrick Garland and the FBI will also be joining them!
On January 16th, Senators Ed Markey and Laphonza Butler (both Democrats if you couldn’t guess) proposed Senate bill S3589 which has since been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It’s stated purpose is: “To…prohibit unauthorized private paramilitary activity, and for other purposes.”
Per S3589: “The 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.”
Apparently, Senators Markey and Butler are NOT familiar with the United States Constitution, even though they took an oath to uphold it.
- “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” or “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” (Amendment I, 1791)
- “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” (Amendment II, 1791)
So, we have another proposed law that would seem to violate a few parts of the U. S. Constitution. Any other problems with their proposal?
Democrats have a habit of designing laws that are broad enough for political hacks like Attorney General Merrick Garland to drive a tank through.
“…any group of 3 or more persons associating under a command structure for the purpose of…function(ing)…as a…security services unit.”
If a church deacon or VFW post commander should organize and train a security force of 3 or more people, would Merrick Garland dream of charging them? What if the church had dared to say there were only two genders, making them terrorists in Garland’s eyes?
And you don’t have to act with the group to run afoul of this proposed law. If you have a firearm or ammunition that has crossed state lines (try buying any that hasn’t crossed state lines at some point) and trained with two other people: “It shall be unlawful… while acting as part of or on behalf of a private paramilitary organization and armed with a firearm, explosive or incendiary de vice, or other dangerous weapon…to publically (sic) patrol, drill, or engage in techniques capable of causing bodily injury or death.”
Firearms are capable of causing bodily injury or death, so the mere possession of one while on security patrol would be a crime.
If one person is patrolling on his own, will the other, non-participants be liable also?
But the U S Supreme Court has given the Democrats a peg to hang their hat on. It ruled in 1886—and repeated in 2008—that the Second Amendment “does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 621 (2008) (citing Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)).
So, three people will now constitute a paramilitary organization if this bill passes?
You may laugh but liberal judges only need to get their toe in the tent in order to let common sense fly out that opening.
This would be yet another law that the government would defend to the death with taxpayer funding while attempting to bankrupt anyone who would dare oppose them. The best way to prevent that is to not have these people in the legislature, so they cannot propose something like that, in the first place.
I believe that is called voting.
